206

Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Kate van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Citation preview

Page 1: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)
Page 2: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Social Work for Sociologists

Page 3: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

This page intentionally left blank

Page 4: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Social Work for SociologistsTheory and Practice

Edited byKate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

Page 5: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

social work for sociologistsCopyright © Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs, 2015.

Figure 7.1 adapted from Shannon, Pat, and Sue Young. 2004. Solving Social Problems: Southern Perspectives, Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press. Copyright © Pat Shannon and Sue Young, 2004; Copyright © Dunmore Press, 2004. Reprinted with the permission of Cengage Learning Australia Pty Ltd.

All rights reserved.

First published in 2015 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN® in the United States— a division of St. Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010.

Where this book is distributed in the UK, Europe and the rest of the world, this is by Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS.

Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world.

Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries.

ISBN: 978-1-137-39296-1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Social work for sociologists : theory and practice / edited by Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-137-39296-1 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Social service 2. Sociology. 3. Social workers. I. Van Heugten, Kate, 1959– II. Gibbs, Anita. HV40.S61783 2015 361.3—dc23 2015007865

A catalogue record of the book is available from the British Library.

Design by Amnet.

First edition: August 2015

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Page 6: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

To family members past and present, you are always with us in spirit and in thought.

Page 7: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

This page intentionally left blank

Page 8: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Contents

List of Figures ix

Acknowledgments xi

Introduction 1Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

Part I. Key Frameworks, Ethics, and Values

1 Overview of the Historical and Contextual Development of Sociology and Social Work 9Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

2 Key Social Work Frameworks for Sociologists 27Anita Gibbs and Kate van Heugten

3 Key Values, Ethics, and Skills for Working with People 47Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

Part II. Application of Social Work Frameworks to Practice with Families, Organizations, and Communities

4 Moving from Risk to Safety: Work with Children and Families in Child Welfare Contexts 67Emily Keddell and Tony Stanley

5 Working with Groups: Group Work with Young Pacific Islands People 85Patrick Vakaoti

6 Bicultural Practice: Beyond Mere Tokenism 103Anaru Eketone and Shayne Walker

7 Analyzing and Solving Social Problems 121Anita Gibbs

Page 9: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

viii ● Contents

8 Stress and Violence in the Workplace: Theory and Practice 141Kate van Heugten and Cathryne L. Schmitz

9 Facilitating Research Mindedness in a Sociology Research Internship Course 157Martin Tolich

Conclusion 171Anita Gibbs and Kate van Heugten

Notes on Contributors 177

Index 181

Page 10: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

List of Figures

Figure 7.1 Relationships between Perspectives, Theories, and Models 126

Page 11: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

This page intentionally left blank

Page 12: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Acknowledgments

The editors wish, foremost, to thank our authors, without whose sterling efforts and insightful contributions there would be no book. We also want to acknowledge our colleagues and students who, often unwittingly, creatively influenced our ideas.

Thank you to our editorial assistant at Palgrave Macmillan, Mara Berkhoff, for support and advice throughout the project; to Palgrave Macmillan editor Lani Oshima, who took on the project as editor; and to Mireille Yanow, publisher and global head of sociology, who helped see the book through to its conclusion in publication. To research assistant Dr. Cindy Zeiher, thank you for your helpful comments on the work in progress. Our heartfelt appreciations also go to Margie Broughton, without whom our venture into American language writing would have been far more fraught.

For us, working as coeditors has been one of the most rewarding academic endeavors we have undertaken in our careers.

Page 13: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

This page intentionally left blank

Page 14: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

IntroduCtIon

Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

This book has been written for students and practitioners of sociology. It aims to introduce them to some important concepts from social work, concepts of which these readers may be unaware, to their

detriment. The book emerged out of discussions that took place among the editors and authors over the course of several years. It is a product of the com-bined efforts of educators, researchers, and practitioners in social work and sociology. The diverse international contributors share concerns about social problems such as poverty, substandard housing, and violence, and all are committed to improving cultural understanding, social justice, and human rights. The contributors hold academic qualifications in sociology and/or social work, and they are experienced as educators and as human service practitioners. Many have witnessed debates in which sociologists or social workers are stereotyped by others suggesting that, for example, sociologists are theoretical purists who will not act to promote public interests or social workers are value-driven ideologues intent on imposing their interpretations of ideal family lives. The contributors to this book do not believe that these dualistic typologies are accurate reflections of the complex considerations that we apply in our research, teaching, and human services work.

After many decades of following divergent paths, social workers and sociolo-gists have recently been coming back together to deal with complex, intractable social problems. In the world of work, interdisciplinary collaborations seek to address big issues such as poverty, violence, and human rights violations. Within universities, previously separate academic departments of sociology and social work are joining or colocating. Although combinations of previously separate disciplines into joint departments are sometimes prompted by fiscal consider-ations resulting from the cutbacks affecting social sciences internationally, talking together has helped us to recognize our common aims and interests. We have been stimulated and inspired by our debates about theory and practice.

Page 15: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

2 ● Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

It would be fair to say that, historically, social workers have tended to acknowledge the important contributions made by sociological theory to the development of social work theory and practice. Books that consider how sociological thinking enhances social work practice are not rare. By contrast, books that consider how social work theory and practice frameworks might help sociologists are possibly nonexistent—except for this one. Because of this long-standing omission, the advantages of the extensively developed social work theories and frameworks for analysis and interventions are virtually unknown to sociology students and practitioners. Although most sociology students plan a career in the human services, their lack of familiarity with these tools for working with families, groups, and communities often leaves them unprepared to deconstruct social problems and offer practical solutions to some of the challenging and complex social ills encountered in the workplace. We believe this is a disservice to sociologists and other social scientists, all of whom could benefit from this social work derived knowledge. This book is written with an aim to correct that situation. Within the book’s chapters are many examples of how social work theories, practices, and skills might be used by sociologists and sociology students.

Among the book’s readers, there will be sociology students wondering where they might find employment and how they can prepare for that, and there will be newly graduated sociologists employed in human service practice who are asking how they can approach their work. Other readers will be social work and human service graduates who want to better articulate the utility of their qualifications in broader academic and employment contexts.

In addition, the material will be of use to academic sociologists and other social scientists, all of whom are facing increasing pressures from students, employers, and university managers to explain the practical utility of their disciplines. We also hope that, as international interest in forming closer interdisciplinary links continues to develop (a movement that is elaborated in chapter 1), the chapters in this book will help foster the development of mutual understanding between disciplines.

Local and Global Contexts

The contributing authors’ biographical notes follow the conclusion to the book. It can be seen that the contributors hail from several nations and include people with British, Dutch, Fijian, New Zealand Māori (indigenous New Zealander), New Zealand Pākehā (white New Zealander), and American backgrounds. The authors have collectively studied and worked across the globe, but a distinguishing feature is that all, bar one, have lived and worked in Aotearoa (New Zealand). Aotearoa is the Māori name for New Zealand,

Page 16: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Introduction ● 3

and Māori is one of the three official languages of New Zealand, alongside English and New Zealand sign language. For this reason, you will see both names used for this country throughout the text. In addition, people who spend time in Aotearoa/New Zealand soon become acquainted with the his-torical and current importance of te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi). This treaty was signed in 1840 by the Māori and the representatives of the British government, and while there are various interpretations, the Māori version afforded the British Crown governance, with the Māori retaining rights over cultural and material treasures such as language, customs, land, and resources. As is discussed much more fully in chapter 6, the principles of the treaty have frequently been poorly adhered to in the history of this coun-try, and Pākehā rule led to long-standing oppression of the Māori, who con-sequently suffered many deprivations. Over recent decades, to respond to the negative consequences of that deprivation, social workers have learned much about how to practice biculturally. Bicultural competency is now a require-ment for professional social work registration in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

Neglect of indigenous populations is not uncommon internationally, and we believe that the teaching provided around those issues by our indigenous authors, speaking from their local experience, has international relevance. We believe this information is an essential part of this text about the lessons that sociologists can learn from social workers, and we hope readers will immerse themselves in these riches.

Structure of the Book

This book is presented in two parts. Part I consists of three chapters in which the editors, van Heugten and Gibbs, explain the historical roots of social work and sociology as linked disciplines. Key social work theoretical frameworks and values for practice are introduced.

In chapter 1, van Heugten and Gibbs explain how social work and sociology emerged out of shared concerns about nineteenth century social problems. They note how, in many countries, the disciplines were initially taught jointly. Pioneers such as Jane Addams, establisher of the Hull House settlement house and lecturer at the University of Chicago, combined sociological theorizing with research and ethical social work practice. Internationally, from the early twentieth century, however, efforts to professionalize sociology led to more circumscribed gender roles: predominantly female social workers provided assistance to service users experiencing social problems, while predominantly male sociologists emphasized value-neutral theorizing and knowledge build-ing. Van Heugten and Gibbs show how positivist ideas of value neutrality have begun to be discredited and how social workers and public sociologists

Page 17: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

4 ● Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

are combining efforts to address social injustices. This chapter explains how sociologists can benefit from social work’s more developed frameworks for practice, which are explained in chapter 2.

In chapter 2, Gibbs and van Heugten introduce social work frameworks that have currency in social work and are especially helpful to sociologists who want to expand their understanding and analysis of the connections between social and personal problems. The authors explain what social workers mean by critical reflection. This concept, which has links with sociological thinking about reflexivity, has become a major framework for current social work practice. The chapter explores strengths approaches, ecosystems approaches, anti-oppressive and empowerment frameworks, rights-based frameworks, indigenous frameworks, and task-centered approaches.

Chapter 3, the final chapter of part I, explains key concepts and develop-ments in social work thinking about values and ethics. Van Heugten and Gibbs explain why practitioners cannot ignore the importance of values and ethics, while they also recognize that ethical dilemmas are complex and that appropriate responses to ethical dilemmas are often contested. The chapter covers the place of professional ethical codes and presents a range of models for ethical decision making, including process, reflective, and cultural models. Developing an in-depth understanding of values and ethics in practice will provide sociologists with tools to enhance their self-awareness, critical reflec-tivity, and capacity to work ethically with a range of service users. Examples of ethical dilemmas are explored, including dilemmas in relation to working with individuals, families, and communities.

Part II of the book, comprising chapters 4 through 9, expands on the central concepts introduced in part I, illustrating their application to practice in a range of fields. The chapters in part II move sequentially in their focus from a micro to a macro orientation.

Chapter 4 starts with an emphasis on the personal in work with individuals and families. Keddell and Stanley explore how social work theories extend sociological understandings of risk and safety in child welfare settings. Sociology students understand the structure and makeup of modern families and the impact of class, gender, and ethnicity on families. These students may, however, lack essential knowledge of how human service workers might challenge prevailing discourses that regulate “at-risk” families and children deemed to need “protection.” Keddell and Stanley explain how sociologists can actively resist the saturation of risk discourses in society by drawing on strengths and safety approaches to practice. In this chapter, sociologists learn how they can collaborate with families in knowledge construction around risk and safety assessments. Such resistance, while not without its tensions, is informed by social work

Page 18: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Introduction ● 5

practices that promote an ethical commitment to self-determination, caring, and social justice.

Next, in chapter 5, Vakaoti introduces the reader to work with groups. He explains the tasks that facilitators need to undertake as a group evolves through beginning, middle, and ending phases of its development. He points to the importance of understanding and attending to the impact of cultural diversity among group members and to the relevance of broader social movements when undertaking such work. Vakaoti illustrates these principles by drawing on his group work experiences with Pacific Islands youth, a culturally diverse and frequently socially marginalized population in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

In chapter 6, Eketone and Walker draw on the example of Aotearoa/New Zealand to discuss the contested meanings of biculturalism and multi-culturalism. The authors explain what biculturalism can bring to sociologists working with indigenous clients or research participants. The chapter explains Māori cultural frameworks, key concepts from a Māori worldview, the relationship between Māori and Pākehā, bicultural thinking, and anti-oppressive practice relevant to social work and sociology internationally.

In chapter 7, Gibbs argues that, although sociologists understand social problems and theorize extensively about the ills of society, moving beyond mere critique to practically address the ills requires new knowledge. The socio-logical imagination connects personal troubles to public issues, thus enabling sociologists to reflect and theorize about the social and environmental causes of human suffering. The social work imagination is needed to move beyond theorizing and to connect theory to action (praxis) and interventions to outcomes. One social problem—that of family poverty—is analyzed by the author utilizing both explanatory and interventive theory to develop change strategies at policy and practice levels.

Chapter 8 considers the impact of practice on human services workers. Van Heugten and Schmitz discuss the negative consequences of workplace stress overload for workers, service users, and organizations and consider how these impacts can be avoided or addressed, from primarily a socioecological and strengths perspective. The authors discuss helpful approaches, such as building collegial support networks and leveraging organizational policies and resources. Collegial violence, such as bullying and mobbing, is a particu-larly stressful workplace experience that may be increasing in neoliberal work-places, yet it remains underreported in the literature. This chapter therefore focuses special attention on this major source of stress.

In chapter 9, the final chapter, Tolich discusses how a practical research internship course heightens the reflective awareness of sociology students and prepares them for employment and collaborative practice with colleagues,

Page 19: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

6 ● Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

research participants, and employers. Tolich notes that internships are commonplace in social work courses and underutilized in sociology programs. He provides a step-by-step explanation of how the sociology students in the internship develop research mindedness (providing a definition of that term drawn from social work research). When the students realize that their research projects can lead to practical outcomes that add public value, they are inspired to hone the knowledge and skills they need to practice ethically.

Most of the chapters in the book include case studies that help to illustrate the main points. All of the chapters provide reflective questions to assist read-ers in considering how the chapter contents might relate to their own study or practice. These reflective questions facilitate the integration and applica-tion of learning to real-life situations. The questions can be used by individual readers or in classroom discussions and tutorials.

The conclusion of the book presents the case for the usefulness of social work to sociologists. It argues that the social work imagination has come of age and offers a robust set of frameworks, concepts, models, and aims of genuine interest and applicability to sociologists. We hope readers of this book agree.

Kate van Heugten, Christchurch, Aotearoa/New ZealandAnita Gibbs, Dunedin, Aotearoa/New Zealand

Page 20: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

PArt I

Key Frameworks, Ethics, and Values

Page 21: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

This page intentionally left blank

Page 22: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

CHAPtEr 1

overview of the Historical and Contextual development of Sociology and Social Work

Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

Introduction

In this first chapter, we identify the historical roots of ideological divisions between social work and sociology. Not all sociologists and social workers know that their disciplines were once closely linked. This is not surprising because it suited the professionalization projects of each discipline in the twentieth century to construct historical narratives that emphasized their differences rather than their commonalities. Internationally, however, the two disciplines emerged in close association. Within academic institutions, the disciplines often shared departments, although those shared departments became established at different times in different countries—around the turn of the nineteenth century into the twentieth in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Europe, and half a century later in Australia and New Zealand (Crothers 2008; Nash and Munford 2001).

The trajectories of their separation involved disagreements that emerged within academic departments in universities, often within a few decades of the departments’ establishment. The disagreements were focused on relatively dualistic positions that each discipline adopted around two core questions. The first question concerned the place of theory and practice. Academic sociologists adopted a position that the ultimate goal of theorizing was knowl-edge building, whereas social workers theorized toward the goal of practice. The second major division, which is inextricably linked to the first, involved the place of values, with sociologists tending to argue for value neutrality and social workers arguing that their endeavors should be value-laden.

Page 23: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

10 ● Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

Divisions also typically occurred along gender lines, to some extent reflecting the stereotypes of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which portrayed women as creatures of emotion and expected women to be concerned with domestic affairs, including the care and well-being of families and children. Men were believed to be more appropriately concerned with matters outside the home, including the development of science, because men were believed to be more capable of understanding facts and theoretical ideas. These gender stereotypes led to the preponderance of women in social work and men in sociology.

The divisions between social work and sociology became more entrenched over time. Social workers, looking outward to the community, aligned their interests with community stakeholders. Sociologists sought to firm up their academic standing within institutes of higher learning. Levels of interaction reduced. The disciplines separated physically, occupying different university corridors and teaching separate student cohorts in differently named programs. Disciplinary silos became concretized, preventing the cross-fertilization of ideas, particularly from social work into sociology. Whereas sociology con-tinued to be taught as a core discipline in many social work programs, the reverse was not true. Sociologists failed to gain from the advances made by social workers in developing theories and frameworks for practice and in learning how to negotiate complex value dilemmas.

Despite these divisions, many sociologists and social workers neither conformed to extreme ideological positions nor fitted the caricatures of altruistic, action-oriented social workers or value-free, theoretical sociologists. Many social workers continued to theorize, and at least some sociologists continued to pursue social justice related topics. Debates around the relation-ships between theory and practice and the possibility of value neutrality were never fully resolved, particularly within sociology. During the 1960s and 1970s, with concerns over civil liberties at a high in the United States and many other countries, there was a reemergence of overt interest in praxis and political action among sociologists. This appeared to converge with the inter-ests of community, work-oriented social workers and radical social workers, the latter of whom sought to transform capitalist societies toward societies with more equitably distributed wealth. Although the radical movements of those mid-twentieth century decades declined from the 1980s onward, sociologists today continue to place themselves on a continuum in relation to the need for the practical applicability of their work. Chapter 9 in this book provides an excellent example of how a university educator encourages students in his sociology research methods class to consider the practical implications and utility of their research.

Page 24: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

overview of the Historical and Contextual development ● 11

More recently, from the late 1980s and 1990s, university educators from social work and sociology have come under increased pressure to adopt more market-oriented approaches, as many national governments have disinvested from the funding of social science education and social welfare (Connell 2000; Dominelli 2005; Thorns 2003; van Heugten 2011). Disciplines are expected to produce graduates with a specific set of technocratic skills rather than critical thinkers. Educators and practitioners from both disciplines are searching for ways of working together to resist such pressures and to enhance mutual effectiveness. Joint work occurs around several shared concerns; one of these is the retention of the role of the social critic, which also involves assisting students to develop their capacity for critical social thinking. Another shared concern is employing knowledge from a range of social sciences to better understand and solve complex social problems. Social workers and sociologists who work together on projects have found that each discipline contributes valuable insights. This book itself is a good example of a social work and sociology collaboration.

Historical Connections and Disconnections

Disciplinary and Occupational Beginnings

The study of societies and social structures and the delivery of organized charity can both be traced back to ancient times. The focus of this chapter is, however, narrower. The chapter explores the emergence of sociology and social work in the mid-nineteenth century and the debates that arose between university educators and practitioners from those disciplines and that drove the disciplines down separate pathways.

The idea that society and social structures are able to be studied and under-stood, and that they might be alterable rather than divinely ordained, can be traced to the turn of the eighteenth century into the nineteenth. During this period, which has been called the Enlightenment, there arose increased belief in the power of reason and the possibility of gaining understanding through scientific exploration. At the end of the eighteenth century, the French and American revolutions undermined the idea that hierarchies and social orders were divinely ordained and showed that human actions might impact political and social structures. Industrialization and urbanization, coupled with the rise of market capitalism, highlighted social problems, and demands for solutions to these problems increased (Bannister 2003; Chriss 2002; Connell 2000; Shaw 2008, 2009). It was against this background that social theoreticians developed their thinking throughout the nineteenth century.

Page 25: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

12 ● Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

As the study of society and social problems began to gain prominence and adherents, like-minded people formed associations. Initially, these associations tended to incorporate people bound by shared interests in the study of social, political, and economic structures and human relationships. An example is the American Social Science Association, established in 1865 (Calhoun 2007). There were no stringent disciplinary boundaries or membership criteria for these early associations.

As theorizing developed, disciplines began to differentiate. The first stand-alone university departments in sociology were established around the turn of the nineteenth century into the twentieth in the United States, England, and Europe. Some early sociological thinkers were clearly driven by theorizing, and those thinkers traced their roots to European social philosophers. Others were concerned with developing theories in order to understand and solve social ills.

Whereas early sociologists held a range of views about the place of social activism, the early development of social work was always closely tied to the study of social ills in order to achieve their amelioration. As previously mentioned, the historical origins of welfare provisions for the poor can be traced to ancient times. Textbooks that draw on more modern Eurocentric accounts of social work’s history point to the codification of English poor laws into the Elizabethan Poor Law in 1601 (Leighninger 2008). The emer-gence of an occupation that is clearly similar to that of modern social workers is located in even more recent times, during the last half of the nineteenth century. During this time, charity organization societies were established, first in England and next in the United States (Leighninger 2008). These organi-zations employed workers to manage the distribution of welfare to the poor and to undertake casework and family work in an effort to encourage the poor to achieve self-reliance. This emerging casework orientation eventually came to represent the microlevel branch of social work, concerned with individual psychotherapy and family focused counseling interventions. By the end of the nineteenth century, this branch of social work had closely aligned itself with the new science of psychology, and the branch grew to incorporate roles in a variety of settings, including social-service workers, known as almoners, in hospitals. Mary Richmond from the Baltimore Charities Organization Society, one of the major proponents of the casework methods of assessment and intervention, became recognized as one of two founders of social work (Franklin 1986), along with Jane Addams, who is discussed below.

Alongside charity organization work, a differently oriented movement developed: the settlement movement, out of which the methods of com-munity workers arose. (This description of the two branches of social work will be referred to again in a later section of the chapter, under the heading of

Page 26: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

overview of the Historical and Contextual development ● 13

radical social work.) The first of the settlements was Toynbee Hall, set up in London’s impoverished East End in 1884 by Canon Samuel Barnett and his wife Henrietta Barnett. The settlement movement was based on a concept of reciprocal learning. Students from nearby universities lived at Toynbee Hall and interacted with socioeconomically disadvantaged community members, with a view that this interaction would lead to mutual political consciousness raising (Leighninger 2008).

At this time, a woman from a wealthy Illinois family, Jane Addams, had developed an educated interest in social issues but had struggled to identify a practical project that would enable her to pursue that interest. She was inspired by what she read about the work taking place at Toynbee Hall, and she traveled to London to spend time at the settlement. Following her return to America, Addams, together with her friend Ellen Gates Starr, estab-lished a settlement in Chicago in 1889: Hull House. They were joined by an expanding group of academically qualified and like-minded people, mostly women (Leighninger 2008). Hull House was the second American settlement, following Stanton Coit’s establishment of the Neighborhood Guild in New York in 1886. Others followed, and by 1910 the movement included over 400 settlement houses across America (Lengermann and Niebrugge 2007).

In 1892, three years after the opening of Hull House, the first department of sociology at an American university was set up at the University of Chicago (Calhoun 2007). We now turn to the story of the men and the women of that department (who were also prominent among the women of Hull House) to seek explanations for the connections and divisions between the disciplines.

Hull House and Sociology at the University of Chicago

Following the principles of Toynbee Hall, Chicago’s Hull House was set in the heart of a new immigrant community. The Chicago immigrants lived surrounded by the sweatshops in which they labored, and the Hull House activists established childcare facilities, social and educational programs, and a labor bureau to support the citizenry (Leighninger 2008).

One of the best-known research projects of Hull House involved the extensive mapping of the sociodemographic features of this impoverished locality. For their methods, the women of Hull House were informed by the earlier work of Charles Booth, who had begun recording the lives of the people of London from 1889, similarly uncovering distressing levels of poverty (Shaw 2009). The Hull House project was published in 1893 as Hull-House Maps and Papers. This publication is considered one of the most important classical works in social mapping, predating by about 20 years any significant adoption of this methodology by sociologists (Levin 2011).

Page 27: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

14 ● Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

Despite her groundbreaking work, many sociologists have never heard of Jane Addams as a sociologist. Instead, she came to be considered, alongside Mary Richmond, a founding mother of social work, and her leadership was identified with the development of the community work branch of social work. Addams was a pacifist in relation to war and an activist for human rights. In 1931, she became the first American woman to be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize (Leighninger 2008).

Addams was not the only social activist lecturer based at Hull House. Sophinisba Breckinridge had a degree in sociology, but she also studied mathematics and law and held two doctorates—one in law and one in political science. Edith Abbott had a degree in sociology and a doctorate in political economy. She was knowledgeable in the most sophisticated statistical methods of the time, and she taught those methods at the University of Chicago (Jabour 2012). Yet despite their formidable academic pedigrees, the work of these aca-demic women gradually came to be discounted by the male sociologists at the University of Chicago. This was largely due to the women’s social activism, because although these women collected data via some of the most rigorous methods, they believed that the work should be done in the service of social purposes, and this did not meet the narrow definitions of the academic sociolo-gists. The women came to be known as social workers, a title that they appeared happy to adopt (Shaw 2009).

Divisions in the Department of Sociology at Chicago

From its inception, the University of Chicago’s sociology department admitted women as students, and the women of Hull House taught in the social sciences. The survey methods that had been used in the develop-ment of the Hull-House Maps and Papers were initially embraced by other Chicago sociologists. However, within a few decades of the department’s establishment, many of the male Chicago sociologists, in their striving for acceptance as members of a scientific discipline, began to disavow their earlier use of social mapping. Instead, they turned to statistics and the test-ing of hypotheses (Bannister 2003). They sought to increase the academic standing of sociology by pursuing ideals of science and reasoning. Whereas departmental sociologists and their students had previously been closely involved in practical social projects, including in connection with Hull House, they now emphasized the view that objective theorizing required abstinence in relation to practical pursuits. The positivist ideal of value neu-trality was also promulgated, so that, although it was deemed appropriate to study people’s values and behaviors, it was considered inappropriate for sociologists to act on their own values. The role of sociology was viewed not

Page 28: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

overview of the Historical and Contextual development ● 15

as humanitarian but as scientific, concerned with making discoveries about human social behavior (Shaw 2009).

Building on and further defining these emerging differences, which appear to have been articulated on both sides, a separate social work program was established at the university in 1920, as the School of Social Service Administration. This was essentially a school of social work. The female stu-dents and staff of the sociology department left the department; most joined the new school to pursue social work education, although some moved into other departments at the university, including anthropology and psychology (Shaw 2009).

The women of Hull House did not stop theorizing, and they continued to clarify their social scientific thinking. Jane Addams clearly expressed her views on appropriate social scientific methodology as needing to be engaged rather than detached, perspectival rather than indifferent to context, and value-laden rather than value-free. She believed that lived experience and scientific methodology interwove and complemented one another and that data gathering, hypothesis testing, and theoretical developments were better focused and more realistic when aimed at achieving social benefits. Addams’s pragmatist theory of ethics held that ethical theory needed to be tried in action. Real-life application was needed to challenge, stretch, and develop ethical understandings and conceptualizations. Addams also believed that experiencing the lives of immigrants and other impoverished people living in substandard inner-city dwellings would enable people to empathize. Empathy was the key mechanism by which practical experiences that might otherwise merely provide insight were transformed into moral imperatives to act against injustice (Seigfried 2013).

In 1924, Edith Abbott, one of the Hull House women, became the dean of the School of Social Service Administration, and in 1927, she and Sophinisba Breckinridge founded the Journal of Social Service Review. Similarly to Addams, Abbott and Breckinridge held clear views about the relationships of research, theory, practice, and ethics: that research should be undertaken not merely to gather knowledge but to solve welfare problems, that research should be sound and scientific, that science and caring are not contradictory or incompatible, and that practitioners should be skilled in research so that practice is informed by knowledge (Shaw 2008).

Initially, some academic sociologists at the University of Chicago continued to actively work with social work educators and practitioners in various ways. They worked in similar departments and shared research interests. Sociologists, although now more commonly personally abstaining from practice, continued to send their students out to pursue charity-related fieldwork (Lengermann and Niebrugge 2007). Over time, however, the professionalization goals of

Page 29: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

16 ● Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

both disciplines pulled them further apart. Sociologists focused on carving out a place in the universities. Narratives, or historical stories, were constructed to present particular views of the relationship with social work, sometimes to the extent of pretending there had never been a relationship. Dominant sociolog-ical narratives cast economists, political scientists, and social philosophers—such as Comte (France), Spencer (England), and Ward (United States)—as forebears. Sociologists pointed (somewhat erroneously) to Weber’s views on values to insist that real sociologists abstained from practice and from making value judgments. Sociologists disparaged social workers as meddlers, and gen-der was invoked to explain disciplinary differentiation, not just in Chicago but also at other United States universities. It was suggested that social work was an expression of women’s natural skills and an extension of their domestic roles, whereas men were expected to be disinterested in family and instead suited to grand theorizing about society and to scientific research involving hypothesis testing (Calhoun 2007; Lengermann and Niebrugge 2007).

By the 1930s, academic sociologists in the United States had also shifted their focus to national rather than local issues and were gaining grants from national foundations, governments, and industries rather than from local donations and charities (Bannister 2003). The separation of sociology from its activist roots further widened (Calhoun 2007), and the idea of a value-neutral science of society continued to be promoted throughout the 1940s in most United States sociology departments (Chriss 2002).

New Voices

Public Sociology

Despite the power of the dominant value-neutral and nonactivist perspectives among sociologists, pockets of activism persisted. The kinds of topics that sociologists researched and the concerns that drove students to become inter-ested in the subject—including poverty, class, gender, and race inequalities—invited involvement to overcome these injustices. During the 1960s, activist voices began to reemerge more openly, in the context of civil rights move-ments worldwide. Educators and citizens became increasingly interested in a more praxis oriented “public sociology” (Calhoun 2007; Oppenheimer and Stark 1999). Internationally, new voices emerged in academia and in published sociological texts, challenging not only the appropriateness but even the possibility of a value-free sociology.

One of these voices was that of Alvin Gouldner (1962). Gouldner had been a respected industrial sociologist, based at the University of Washington, until he began to express views against the notion of a value-free sociology.

Page 30: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

overview of the Historical and Contextual development ● 17

He suggested that this was an ideology in itself and an expression of a value bias, which dictated to sociologists how they should live and practice. He claimed that he knew no sociologist who was in reality value-free. He traced the notion of value-neutral sociology to Max Weber, whom others cited in support of value freedom; however, he recognized that Weber had not in fact advocated moral indifference but had cautioned against imposing moral values. Unlike Weber, he believed teachers should declare their values to their students rather than risk that their biases would influence students in hidden ways. He wondered whether Weber’s concerns arose out of his cultural context and time—Germany in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries—when students might be more readily influenced by their professors than were American students of the 1960s.

Gouldner developed a program in reflexive sociology that was a direct reaction against the idea of the possibility of objectivity. He called on sociolo-gists to take account of the way in which the sociological inquirer is involved in the development of his or her own ideas (Chriss 2002; Pedraza 2002). Gould-ner’s influence remained relatively limited in comparison with that of his con-temporary, C. Wright Mills, although their ideas about the impossibility of a value-neutral sociology were similar. Mills eventually became more famous among sociologists, other social scientists, and the public. It has been sug-gested that this was because, somewhat ironically, Gouldner concentrated on theorizing in an attempt to influence the thinking of his academic colleagues, who ignored him. By contrast, Mills emphasized connections between theory and public concerns in a way that clarified practical implications. He also wrote in a style that was accessible to a wide audience (Gill 2013). Mills advo-cated that social scientists should connect personal troubles to public issues, and his idea of the sociological imagination became well known (Mills 1959). He was a pragmatist, who held that the worth of a theory should be evaluated by the extent of its usefulness in helping people to overcome difficult social circumstances (Watson 2008). His writing continues to be cited by sociologists, social workers, and other social scientists (Kelly and Stanley 2012).

By the 1970s, in part because of anticommunist purges that were occur-ring worldwide and that were particularly prominent in the United States, the brief surge in more radical leftist sociology subsided, leaving only small numbers of activist, critical, populist, and humanist sociologists (Oppenheimer and Stark 1999).

Radical Social Work

Meanwhile, social workers had continued their efforts to gain recognition of their field as a profession. They never stepped back from the idea that

Page 31: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

18 ● Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

theories and frameworks should be developed in order for practice to achieve humanitarian goals. However, the early divisions that had arisen between casework and psychotherapeutic approaches, on the one hand, and settlement and other community work methods, on the other, were never fully recon-ciled. Many social workers struggled to find a balance between the ideals of advocacy and the demands of government-funded jobs that might require them to pass judgment on and take control over service users’ lives. The seemingly more scientific methods of psychological diagnosis and microin-terventions were associated with the prestigious medical profession, and this association provided more status than did community work with the poor. A focus on work with individuals and families also enabled practitioners to avoid the risks inherent in political activism, which might require speaking out against employers and powerful political stakeholders. Micropractice approaches, dealing with individuals and families rather than with societal structures, began to predominate (van Heugten 1999).

For a brief time during the 1960s and 1970s, there was a temporary surge in radical anticapitalist and other critical civil rights and social justice oriented social work and community work practices, alongside the politicization of other social sciences (Banks 1995; Davies 1991). The achievements of advocacy and community development work were, however, difficult to prove. Further-more, critiques of social work practices abounded during this time, alleging that social workers might be harming rather than helping service users (Domi-nelli 1996; van Heugten 1999). This critique hit radical social workers hard. In the face of these challenges, many social workers retreated from political activism to microlevel practice. Change on a smaller scale, with individuals and families, seemed more achievable and led to fewer conflicts for social workers in their workplaces (van Heugten and Daniels 2001).

Australasian Developments

As previously noted, academic sociology and social work programs developed relatively later in Australia (from the 1940s) and in New Zealand (from the 1950s). As had happened elsewhere, the disciplines frequently evolved together, in joint departments in universities. In New Zealand, for example, at Victoria University of Wellington, sociology emerged after, and was initially based within, the country’s first department of social work/social policy. At Massey University in Palmerston North and at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, it was social work that emerged later, during the 1970s; it was initially taught within departments of sociology (Crothers 2008; Nash and Munford 2001). By the 1980s, joint departments began to separate. Although these movements occurred more than half a century later than in

Page 32: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

overview of the Historical and Contextual development ● 19

Northern Hemisphere countries, the mutual misunderstandings and disap-pointments echoed the same concerns about theory, practice, and the place of values.

Initially, the gender profile of Australian and New Zealand academic social workers was not particularly feminized. Men were prominent among academic staff and were strongly represented among the first cohorts of students. McMahon’s (2003) commentary on hidden aspects of the history of Australian social work adds, however, an interesting perspective to the matter of gender. He suggested that disciplines that are heavily invested in professionalization, involving the establishment of professional associations and university courses, might be especially prone to promoting the involve-ment of men and overlooking the contributions of practitioners, activists, and women. He noted that in Australia, in the latter half of the nineteenth century and in the early twentieth century, there were several women activists who might have been readily claimed to be forerunners of social work. Their work revolved around fair wages, women’s rights to suffrage, and the right to education, particularly for poor children. These women activists, including religious women, were omitted from the historical narrative, perhaps, as mooted by McMahon, because the presence of so many women was seen to undermine the discipline’s efforts to be seen as a high status profession. By the middle of the twentieth century, social work’s goal of being recognized as a profession was being very actively pursued internationally, including in Australia and New Zealand. Eventually, however, irrespective of any efforts to omit women from the public narrative and so reduce their prominence, the overwhelming involvement of women in the profession matched the international gendered pattern, and the profile of social work in these two countries also became indisputably feminized.

More powerful even than the erasure of women from historical accounts, which sociologists will recognize as having also occurred within their discipline, has been the loss of indigenous stories and perspectives. Internationally, indigenous forms of social thinking and practice have been overlooked or expunged as being irrelevant. Over recent decades, however, important work has been done on indigenous perspectives within New Zea-land (Nash 2003) and Australia. Social workers there, who formerly tended to turn to North America and the United Kingdom for developments in theoretical and practice approaches, have begun to recognize local indigenous innovations. These include developments in bicultural practice frameworks in New Zealand and anti-oppressive and critical perspectives emerging in Australia. Such developments are relevant to all people studying and working in the human services; they will be expanded on in later chapters in this book, particularly chapters 2 and 6.

Page 33: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

20 ● Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

Social Work and Sociology Today

Balancing Action and Reflection

Although sociologists continue to debate the appropriateness of engaging in social change oriented practice and the extent to which it might be appropriate to take up value-laden positions, few now argue for extreme abstinence from these matters. For example, Plummer (2010, 203) suggested that, although sociologists should not venture to tell people how to think and act, they should investigate topics that are politically and morally important. He urged: “The challenge is on for each generation to leave behind a better place for subsequent generations.” Plummer defined value neutrality as meaning that sociologists should be open to all perspectives, should be aware of context, and should strive to achieve an adequate representation of ideas. But alongside this, he stressed that the ethics of doing sociology should be considered, including the impact of research on participants and the potential consequences of how find-ings might be used. He appeared to suggest that principles of openness on the part of sociologists might be more readily adhered to if they remain in more contemplative or investigative roles rather than activist interventionist roles.

Although some sociologists and other social scientists, and even some educators in social work and human services, are able to remain at the more abstinent end of the values and action continua, most will encounter situations in their work that require that they take a stand. Sociology graduates will have been advised during their studies that they need to take care in expressing ethical views and in balancing action and reflection, but they might not have learned how to actually do that in practical situations. Social workers, on the other hand, have usually gained this knowledge during their education, and they build on that foundational knowledge in their work.

Working Together Again

More recently, sociologists and social workers are finding common ground and joining forces around a number of shared interests. Sociologists are moving back toward areas previously occupied by social workers in regard to the solving of complex social problems that cause human suffering. Social work educators are joining sociologists in expressing concerns over the commodification of social sciences into technocratic skills-based trades.

Contemporary sociologists, in particular those involved in feminist sociology, antiracist sociology, and queer sociology, are increasingly explicit about their anti-oppressive ethical standpoints (Laslett 2007; Jeffries 2009). Sociologists are among those who critique injustices, protest against state and nonstate violence, and raise concerns over the impacts of environmental degradation.

Page 34: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

overview of the Historical and Contextual development ● 21

Increasingly visible among sociologists are “public sociologists” who seek to engage with wide audiences and multiple stakeholders to advance both analytic and practical prosocial goals (Burawoy 2005; Calhoun 2007; Crothers 2008; Jeffries 2009). As sociologists endeavor to understand and address wicked problems—complex social issues that cannot be adequately approached from a single perspective (Rittel and Webber 1973)—they become reengaged in interdisciplinary teams that include social workers. Since 2011, a yearly International Conference on Sociology and Social Work has brought together increasing numbers of participants from Europe, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australasia to reveal, discuss, and celebrate their involvements in such joint work efforts. These conferences are unique in providing a forum where scholars from both disciplines are invited to “explore the various forms of interaction and cooperation between the two disciplines and the forms of knowledge they enable” (International Confer-ence on Sociology and Social Work 2013).

In relation to the second area in which sociologists and social work have found common ground—that is, the commodification of the social sciences—many international commentators have expressed concerns over increasing instrumentalization in the social sciences, including social work and sociology. This instrumentalization involves an intense focus on the employment readiness of graduates; it has been identified as occurring in the context of a global neoliberal agenda, the decline of the welfare state, and the diminishing support for the social sciences (Amaral and Magalhães 2004; Connell 2000; Healy and Meagher 2004; Lorenz 2005, 2008; Thorns 2003).

For social work, the demands made by governments, by employers, and latterly by registration boards have led to a competency-driven focus on the part of many educators, particularly from the 1990s (Churchman and Woodhouse 1999). Following on from historical tendencies, social work educators have continued to look outward and to forge strong stakeholder connections outside the university, leading to weaker cross-disciplinary links. Although many social workers have continued to learn about sociology, they have let slip their interactive, practical relationships with their fellow social scientists.

Kelly and Stanley (2012) expressed concern that, while social work had turned too far toward individualistic responses, sociology had also moved too far away from its praxis roots. They suggested that the disciplines could learn from each other and that doing so was essential in facing the risks that the neoliberal context posed to both disciplines. Indeed, sociologists and social workers are turning to one another regarding their shared concern about retaining their positions as social critics, in spite of pressures to become mere purveyors of the skills demanded by employers.

Page 35: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

22 ● Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

Perhaps serendipitously, although unfortunately owing mostly to decreased funding, some New Zealand departments of sociology, social work, human services, gender studies, and anthropology have become more closely connected, either in large schools or as joint departments. In other parts of the world, many departments of sociology and social work have also begun to work more closely together. It is uncommon, however, for social work to take its alphabetical first position when these departments are named, perhaps indicating a continuing bias against social work as the lower-status academic discipline. Closer associa-tions are leading to more conversations between the disciplines, although the specters of old arguments and status wars haunt us still.

Conclusion

Disciplines are constituted and reconstituted. Sometimes they join temporarily, so members can discuss common concerns. The differing perspectives can shed light on complex situations, but only if the members engage in open dialogue. Occasionally, previously separate disciplines form closer partner-ships, or if subject areas become very large, groups might split off from their discipline of origin (Austrin and Farnsworth 2007; Klein 2010).

In this chapter, we identified how social work and sociology shared com-mon interests from their inception yet split over ideological differences that have at times appeared to be insoluble. Although social workers continued to learn from sociologists’ writing, dialogue was constrained. Some (“classical”) sociologists held, at least formally, particularly strong views that social work’s practice and value-laden positions were anathema. Consequently, sociology students learned less from social work’s developments in those areas than they might have. When disciplines cover similar territory, it can sometimes be more rather than less daunting for adherents to admit to being able to learn from one another because they may fear losing the disciplines’ separate iden-tities. However, with a less positivist emphasis on finding perfect solutions to complex questions around practice and values, we believe the time has come to open opportunities for more flexible learning and cooperation. This book aims to provide an avenue for such opportunities. The next chapter opens dialogue around practice frameworks, and chapter 3 addresses the place of values in practice.

Reflective Questions

1. Explore your local/regional social work and sociology histories. In this exploration, consider to what extent, and in what aspects, those histories might be termed shared or separate. Can you identify obvious

Page 36: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

overview of the Historical and Contextual development ● 23

connections or divisions between the disciplines? Do those occur around issues similar to those that were identified in this chapter? Are there historical turning points at which the disciplines have moved closer together or further apart?

2. Can you identify the distinctiveness of social work and sociology? What are the clear points of difference between the two disciplines?

3. Who are the people you admire in the fields of sociology and/or social work? Are they educators, activists, or frontline workers? What is it about them that you admire? Consider their qualities, values, and achievements.

References

Amaral, Alberto, and António Magalhães. 2004. “Epidemiology and the Bologna Saga.” Higher Education 48 (1): 79–100. doi:10.1023/B:HIGH.0000033766.02802.92.

Austrin, Terry, and John Farnsworth. 2007. “Assembling Sociologies: Following Disciplinary Formations in and across the Social Sciences.” New Zealand Sociology 22 (1): 45–68. https://sites.google.com/site/nzsociology/journal.

Banks, Sarah. 1995. Ethics and Values in Social Work. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Bannister, Robert C. 2003. “Sociology.” In The Cambridge History of Science. Vol.

7, The Modern Social Sciences, edited by Theodore M. Porter and Dorothy Ross, 329–353. London: Cambridge University Press.

Burawoy, Michael. 2005. “For Public Sociology.” American Sociological Review 70 (1): 4–28. doi:10.1177/000312240507000102.

Calhoun, Craig J. 2007. “Sociology in America: An Introduction.” In Sociology in America: A History, edited by Craig J. Calhoun, 1–38. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Chriss, James J. 2002. “Gouldner’s Tragic Vision.” Sociological Quarterly 43 (1): 81–96. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2002.tb02385.x.

Churchman, Rosaling, and David Woodhouse. 1999. “The Influence of Professional and Statutory Bodies on Professional Schools within New Zealand Tertiary Institutions.” Quality in Higher Education 5 (3): 211–226. doi:10.1080/1353832990050303.

Connell, R. W. 2000. “Sociology and World Market Society.” Contemporary Sociology 29 (2): 291–296. doi:10.2307/2654382.

Crothers, Charles. 2008. “The State of New Zealand Sociology: An Updated Profile.” New Zealand Sociology 23 (1): 3–29. https://sites.google.com/site/nzsociology/journal.

Davies, Martin. 1991. “Sociology and Social Work. A Misunderstood Relationship.” In The Sociology of Social Work, edited by Martin Davies, 1–13. New York: Routledge.

Dominelli, Lena. 1996. “Deprofessionalizing Social Work: Anti-oppressive Practice, Competencies and Postmodernism.” British Journal of Social Work 26 (2): 153–175. http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/.

———. 2005. “Social Work Education under Globalisation: Trends and Develop-ments in the United Kingdom.” Portularia: Revista de Trabajo Social 5 (1): 59–75. http://www.basw.co.uk/british-journal-of-social-work/.

Page 37: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

24 ● Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

Franklin, Donna L. 1986. “Mary Richmond and Jane Addams: From Moral Certainty to Rational Inquiry in Social Work Practice.” Social Service Review 60 (4): 504–525. doi:10.1086/644396.

Gill, Timothy M. 2013. “‘Why Mills, Not Gouldner?’ Selective History and Differential Commemoration in Sociology.” American Sociologist 44 (1): 96–115. doi:10.1007/s12108-012-9171-4.

Gouldner, Alvin W. 1962. “Anti-Minotaur: The Myth of a Value-Free Sociology.” Social Problems 9 (3): 199–213. doi:10.1525/sp.1962.9.3.03a00010.

Healy, Karen, and Gabrielle Meagher. 2004. “The Reprofessionalization of Social Work: Collaborative Approaches for Achieving Professional Recognition.” The British Journal of Social Work 34 (2): 243–260. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch024.

International Conference on Sociology and Social Work. 2013. “The Interaction between Sociology and Social Work: Creativity, Cooperation and Knowledge.” Aalborg University, Denmark. May. http://www.sociologyandsocialwork.aau.dk/.

Jabour, Anya. 2012. “Relationship and Leadership: Sophonisba Breckinridge and Women in Social Work.” Affilia 27 (1): 22–37. doi:10.1177/0886109912437496.

Jeffries, Vincent. 2009. Handbook of Public Sociology. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

Kelly, Stephanie, and Tony Stanley. 2012. “Where Science Meets Art: Sociology and Social Work.” Sociology Mind 2 (4): 335–341. doi:10.4236/sm.2012.24044.

Klein, Julie Thompson. 2010. Creating Interdisciplinary Campus Cultures: A Model for Strength and Sustainability. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Laslett, Barbara. 2007. “Feminist Sociology in the Twentieth-Century United States: Life Stories in Historical Context.” In Sociology in America: A History, edited by Craig J. Calhoun, 480–502. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Leighninger, Leslie. 2008. “The History of Social Work and Social Welfare.” In Compre-hensive Handbook of Social Work and Social Welfare. The Profession of Social Work, edited by Barbara White, Karen M. Sowers, and Catherine N. Dulmus, 1–24. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Lengermann, Patricia, and Gillian Niebrugge. 2007. “Thrice Told: Narratives of Sociology’s Relation to Social Work.” In Sociology in America: A History, edited by Craig J. Calhoun, 63–114. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Levin, Irene. 2011. “Sociology and Social Work in Chicago: An Institutional Division.” Paper presented at the International Seminar on Sociology and Social Work. Lisbon, Portugal, May 2011.

Lorenz, Walter. 2005. “Social Work and the Bologna Process.” Social Work and Society 3 (2): 224–235. http://www.socwork.net/sws/index.

———. 2008. “Paradigms and Politics: Understanding Methods Paradigms in an Historical Context: The Case of Social Pedagogy.” British Journal of Social Work 38 (4): 625–644. http://www.basw.co.uk/british-journal-of-social-work/.

McMahon, Anthony. 2003. “Redefining the Beginnings of Social Work in Australia.” Advances in Social Work and Welfare Education 5 (1): 86–94. http://www.anzswwer .org/journal/.

Page 38: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

overview of the Historical and Contextual development ● 25

Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nash, Mary. 2003. “Social Work Education: Agencies and Academic Disciplines.” International Social Work 46 (1): 23–35. doi:10.1177/0020872803046001595.

Nash, Mary, and Robyn Munford. 2001. “Unresolved Struggles: Educating Social Work-ers in Aotearoa New Zealand.” Social Work Education 20 (1): 21–34. doi:10.1080/ 02615470020028355.

Oppenheimer, Martin, and Evan Stark. 1999. “Sociology.” Critical Sociologist 25 (1): 30–35. doi:10.1177/08969205990250010401.

Pedraza, Silvia. 2002. “A Sociology for Our Times: Alvin Gouldner’s Message.” The Sociological Quarterly 43 (1):73–79. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2002.tb02384.x.

Plummer, Kenneth. 2010. Sociology: The Basics. New York: Routledge.Rittel, Horst W. J., and Melvin M. Webber. 1973. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of

Planning.” Policy sciences 4 (2): 155–169. http://link.springer.com/journal/11077.Seigfried, Charlene Haddock. 2013. “The Social Self in Jane Addams’s Prefaces and

Introductions.” Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society: A Quarterly Journal in American Philosophy 49 (2): 127–156. doi:10.2979/trancharpeirsoc.49.2.127.

Shaw, Ian. 2008. “Merely Experts? Reflections on the History of Social Work, Science and Research.” Research, Policy and Planning 26 (1): 57–65. http://ssrg.org.uk/journal/.

———. 2009. “Rereading the Jack-Roller: Hidden Histories in Sociology and Social Work.” Qualitative Inquiry 15 (7): 1241–1264. doi:10.1177/1077800409334205.

Thorns, David C. 2003. “The Challenge of Doing Sociology in a Global World: The Case of Aotearoa/New Zealand.” Current Sociology 51 (6): 589–708. doi:10.1177/00113921030516009.

van Heugten, Kate. 1999. “Social Workers Who Move into Private Practice: A Study of the Issues That Arise for Them.” PhD thesis, Social Work, University of Can-terbury, Christchurch, NZ.

———. 2011. “Registration and Social Work Education: A Golden Opportunity or a Trojan Horse?” Journal of Social Work 11 (2): 174–190. doi:10.1177/146801 7310386695.

van Heugten, Kate, and Ken Daniels. 2001. “Social Workers Who Move into Private Practice: The Impact of the Socio-economic Context.” British Journal of Social Work 31 (5): 739–755. doi:10.1093/bjsw/31.5.739.

Watson, Tony J. 2008. “Managing Identity: Identity Work, Personal Predicaments and Structural Circumstances.” Organization 15 (1): 121–143. doi:10.1177/ 1350508407084488.

Page 39: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

This page intentionally left blank

Page 40: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

CHAPtEr 2

Key Social Work Frameworks for Sociologists

Anita Gibbs and Kate van Heugten

Introduction

Chapter 1 provides an overview of the distinctiveness of social work and sociology, their differences and similarities, and their converging and diverg-ing histories. It also provides the rationale for subsequent chapters, wherein we will tease out the frameworks, theoretical concepts, values, and skills that social work offers to sociology. This chapter focuses on the conceptual frame-works that have currency in social work and offers sociologists the opportunity to expand on their understanding and analysis of the connections between social and personal problems. We begin with a brief discussion of frameworks as used in social work and then introduce Aleena and her family as a case study to which we later apply those frameworks. The first framework consid-ered is that of critical reflection; in many respects, this is considered to be the framework of current social work practice. Many other frameworks used in social work practice have either been adapted to include critical reflection or been rejected as outmoded or as inappropriate in a critically reflective practice environment. In addition to the critical reflection framework, we will explore frameworks focusing on strengths, competencies, and success (Dybicz 2012); ecosystems approaches; anti-oppressive and empowerment frameworks; rights-based frameworks; indigenous frameworks, with a particular focus on frameworks used by the indigenous people of New Zealand; and finally, task-centered approaches. All of these continue to have a significant impact on social work practice and offer sociologists new ways of viewing vulnerable people in society.

Page 41: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

28 ● Anita Gibbs and Kate van Heugten

Frameworks and Theories

For the most part, the sociologist will find that any introductory sociology text will consider a variety of theories to explain social issues and problems, to in effect promote the sociological imagination. For the social worker, the focus is on frameworks rather than theories. A framework is a “scaffolding of ideas that provide a logical and integrated explanation of a whole” (Connolly and Morris 2012, 46). Frameworks embrace theory, perspectives, knowledge, values, ethics, and critical concepts. In social work, frameworks connect expla-nation, analysis, and understanding to intervention—they are “theorizing in action,” able to incorporate practice, factual knowledge, and experien-tial knowledge to be used in everyday social work situations (Connolly and Morris 2012; Trevithick 2008). For each of the frameworks presented in this chapter, we take a “praxis” approach—that is, the idea that knowledge cannot be separated from action and that action will feed back into knowledge devel-opment (Ife 2012). Hence, each framework integrates theory and practice, enabling those working in the broader human services to use together both their theoretical understanding and their intervention skills (Ife 2012). For many sociologists, there has often been a separation of theory from action, but a social work approach brings them together.

Social work, as a set of theories, ideas, and practices, is itself a social construction (Payne 2005); therefore, as with sociology, fixed statements about the nature and complexity of social work frameworks will be contested. The following discussion of key frameworks could therefore look somewhat different if other authors were writing this text. Our analysis stems from our years as social work and sociology educators, and the aim is to offer com-monly used frameworks from social work that resonate with sociologists’ desires to connect with the lived reality of the problems and people they encounter. Readers should approach these frameworks with a questioning mind, as some of the frameworks are less emancipatory than are others.

Case Study: Aleena and Family

Aleena is 22 years old and the mother of three young children: Thomas is five years old, Julie is two years old, and Jed is four months old. Aleena had been in an intermittent relationship with the children’s father but has not seen him for six months, and she says she has broken the relationship off for good. Aleena lives in a high-rise apartment building and receives welfare benefit payments from the government, which barely meet her family’s needs. The neighborhood is run-down and has a high crime rate, and she rarely feels safe to take her children out. Aleena formerly lived with her mother, but because

Page 42: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Key Social Work Frameworks for Sociologists ● 29

the mother was a heavy drinker of alcohol, Aleena did not feel the children were safe, and she moved out to her current accommodation. Aleena left school at 15 years of age with no qualifications. She became pregnant at 16, and she has never been in paid employment. Aleena feels overwhelmed with her current responsibilities. She tries to get Thomas to school most days, but she struggles with exhaustion and often stays at home, doing little with the children in terms of education and positive activities. Her doctor has diag-nosed Aleena as suffering from depression, and Aleena has requested support from a nongovernmental organization that helps families in crisis. We will refer to this case study throughout the rest of the chapter as we examine the applicability of various frameworks to Aleena’s situation.

A Framework for Critical Reflection

In social work, reflexivity (or reflectivity) refers to awareness of how our theories, values, beliefs, and culture shape our perceptions and interpretations of situations. Sociologists will be familiar with the concept of reflexivity. Bour-dieu referred to reflexivity as “the systematic exploration of the ‘unthought categories of thought which delimit the thinkable and predetermine the thought’” (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, 40). Sociologists will be less familiar with the ideas of reflection-in-action and critical reflection that focus on “a process of learning from experience” (Fook and Gardner 2012, 3). The framework of critical reflection used by social workers in practice has devel-oped from Schön’s (1983) seminal work on reflection-in-action and Fook, White, and Gardner’s extensive theoretical development of critical social work (Fook and Gardner 2012; Fook, White, and Gardner 2006). Schön’s reflection-in-action is a process whereby workers, while having clear practice frameworks, remain engaged in constant questioning of problem interpreta-tions, goals, and professional practice theories. Both practice approaches and professional theories can change as a consequence of reflection, as the practice situation unfolds. To be able to reflect in action, a person must bring to the fore underlying, unspoken, or tacit knowledge and must be curious or be able to be surprised about the situation at hand.

Critical reflection goes beyond reflection-in-action. Borrowing from post-modern ideas of discourse analysis of power arrangements, critical reflection engages in a process of deconstruction and reconstruction, bringing about alternative ways of seeing, thinking, speaking, and doing that can lead to transformation and can enable new meanings and actions to be applied to an issue (Fook and Gardner 2012; Fook 2012). According to Fook, White, and Gardner (2006, 12), “critical reflection is the process by which adults identify the assumptions governing their actions, locate the historical and cultural

Page 43: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

30 ● Anita Gibbs and Kate van Heugten

origins of the assumptions, question the meaning of the assumptions, and develop alternative ways of acting.”

A number of writers (Agger 1998; Fook 2012; Fook and Askeland 2006; Fook and Gardner 2012) have formulated the basic tenets of critical reflection:

● use of critical theory, thereby bringing the structural to the personal ● acceptance of knowledge as socially constructed and value-based

● deconstruction of power, language, and practice within their social, historical, political, philosophical, and cultural contexts

● analysis of discourse that leads to transformation, empowerment, and reconstruction of structures, identities, self, problems, relationships, and practice

● creation of knowledge rather than “knowledge-as-facts” seeking

A critical approach to social work practice has been developed by Fook and colleagues in Australia, using ideas from postmodern theory, critical theory, and critical reflection. This approach is “concerned with the analysis and transfor-mation of power relations at every level of social work practice” (Healy 2005, 172). It can incorporate Marxist, radical, feminist, queer, and antiracist ideas, and it attempts to “understand the original causes of oppression, within overarching social structures” (Healy 2005, 174). Fook (2012) has noted, however, the limitations of a purely structural focus; she has argued that, although the aim of a critical approach to social work is to analyze, challenge, and transform social structures, it should also be committed to empowering individuals to use their own strengths to construct new narratives of coping and resilience. The “critical” in a critical approach to social work thus informs anti-oppressive frameworks and narrative and strengths approaches (all of which are discussed in this chapter).

If we were to apply some of the basic features of critical reflection to Aleena’s situation, we would begin to view her situation as a set of structural challenges rather than, say, poor choices or poor parenting skills. We would understand that Aleena has struggled to have opportunities to provide for her family and that she has experienced oppressive living conditions and social exclusion. We would encourage Aleena and those working with her to critically analyze the power structures and imbalances of her situation, as well as to deconstruct the dominant narratives that others are using about her or that she herself believes about her situation. It would be important to then reframe and recon-struct Aleena’s problems—poverty, single parenthood, unsafe neighborhood, depression—utilizing empowerment strategies, as well as analyzing the social, cultural, and economic contexts. The goal would be to enable Aleena to con-sider and develop alternative identities, strategies, and practices. Helping

Page 44: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Key Social Work Frameworks for Sociologists ● 31

Aleena develop new identities alone would not be sufficient because this would fail to address wider structural issues. New organizational and political approaches would also be required to deal with the structural challenges.

Narrative, Strengths, and Solution-Focused Frameworks

Dybicz (2012) considered narrative therapy, the strengths perspective, and a solution-focused approach as a group of ideas and practices informed by a postmodern framework. As such, they fit within a critical reflective practice approach. Each of these approaches enables a focus on strengths, competencies, and success; they have been widely applied in fields of social work, including legally mandated work with clients (De Jong and Berg 2001; Dybicz 2012).

A narrative approach focuses on examining the stories that people construct about themselves and how these stories shape their identities, experiences, and opportunities in life (Healy 2005). From a postmodern perspective, narratives can have both negative and positive impacts on people and can therefore be a helpful site for intervention; professionals can help service users to identify and challenge damaging narratives of their lives and to develop new narratives that enhance their well-being (Fook 2012; Healy 2005). Narratives construct lived experiences, and using the story as a starting point enables professional helpers to gain understanding of people’s issues from their point of view, to co-construct new knowledge, and to assist people in developing the capacity to transform their thinking and take action (Fook 2012; Lehmann 2006).

The strengths framework, while having elements of postmodern thinking, is also connected to concepts from humanism and person-centered theory. The strengths framework developed as a social work practice approach during the 1980s; it incorporates principles of respect and positive regard for clients, worker genuineness, client self-determination, and the ability of clients to reach their potential (Healy 2005). Sanders and Munford (2010) suggested that strengths and solution-focused approaches can be viewed as part of the same framework, although others distinguish the two as distinct frameworks (De Jong and Berg 2001; Dybicz 2012). Strengths and solution-focused work focus on the strengths, capacities, resources, and successes of families who struggle and attempt to maximize the benefits of these positive qualities (Sanders and Munford 2010). Strengths and solution-focused frameworks are future-oriented and do not focus on remedying problems of the past; they instead assist clients or communities in planning future strategies that will solve the major issues they face (Healy 2005).

The work of Saleebey (2002), Rapp (1998), and Kisthart (2002) has been particularly influential in developing the strengths model, and that of De Jong and Berg (2001) in developing the solution-focused model. These writers,

Page 45: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

32 ● Anita Gibbs and Kate van Heugten

along with Connolly and Healy (2013) and Sanders and Munford (2010), have discussed the main tenets of strengths and solution-focused frameworks:

● Everyone has strengths and resources and the potential for resilient responses to adverse life events, and each person is the expert on his or her own lived experience.

● People are capable of deciding what might be the solutions to the adverse life events they are experiencing, and they are to be invited to be the authority on what changes they might like to see and how those changes should come about.

● Human service professionals should view clients positively and work collaboratively with them to help clients maintain control over their lives and to help build clients’ internal and external resources.

These three frameworks—narrative, strengths, and solution-focused—provide a nonblaming way of explaining people’s challenges and enable a positive and resilience-oriented focus for intervention. They allow for story-telling of lived experience and for people to develop a capacity and strength to solve problems as they see fit. The main limitation of these approaches is that they are usually applied to achieve individual and family improve-ment and are seldom used to attempt to transform and challenge structural inequalities (Gray 2011). Gray (2011) cautioned those who support such frameworks to challenge the neoliberal capture of the strengths approach and to instead adopt a more philosophical understanding of strengths as bringing social justice and liberation to whole communities and not just individuals.

If we apply these frameworks to Aleena’s situation, a human service pro-fessional would facilitate Aleena speaking her own narrative about her life, with an aim to encourage and validate her story. The worker might help chal-lenge and deconstruct Aleena’s story if it is destructive of her well-being and might encourage her to reauthor aspects of the story (Connolly and Healy 2013). The worker would work with Aleena to identify her skills, relation-ship strengths, and other resources and assist her in taking a self-determining pathway to achieve new competencies and success. The worker would hold Aleena in high positive regard and work collaboratively with her to help Aleena solve her own problems and to build up Aleena’s internal and external strengths and resources. The worker might also help Aleena access resources from others to improve her social, educational, and living conditions.

Ecosystems Frameworks

Social work has combined theory from ecological approaches and systems theory to develop frameworks focused on understanding and helping people

Page 46: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Key Social Work Frameworks for Sociologists ● 33

in their varied social environments. Ecosystems approaches “focus on interaction within and across multiple ‘social systems,’ which can include the interpersonal system of family and friendship ties, neighborhood systems, organizational systems, social policy systems and social structural systems” (Healy 2005, 132). An important tenet of ecosystems frameworks is that a system is a holistic entity made up of components that connect to and influence each other. If there are changes to any part of that system, then the other parts of the system will be affected. The assumption is that the overall system is greater than is the sum of its parts and that the system will tend toward establishing equilibrium or homeostasis. Current views of ecosystems have moved beyond emphasis on equilibration and homeostasis to incorporate the idea of conflict in the system.

Ecosystems frameworks have been around for a long time and have influ-enced social work significantly since the 1960s. General systems theories originated in the 1930s; they posited that the problems people face are due to the poor fit between persons and their environment and that intervention to help people should target the transactions between people and the vari-ous systems around them (Healy 2005). An ecosystems framework enables a “here and now” approach to attempt to change more than just the individual, by connecting individuals to their social and cultural contexts (Connolly and Healy 2013). It incorporates concepts of fit and adaption, so that people’s well-being is higher if their fit in the systems is working well and they are able to adapt to the system stressors imposed on them (Payne 2005).

The psychologist Bronfenbrenner (1979) developed an ecological model, which he continued to modify until his death in 2005 and which has become widely adopted in social work. In basic terms, his model locates systems at five levels: the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chro-nosystem. The microsystem level refers to systems in a person’s immediate environment. The mesosystem level refers to connections between microsys-tems, such as the connection between parents and school. The exosystem refers to more external systems that influence a person’s life but with which they do not necessarily actively interact, such as welfare systems and services. The macrosystem refers to the broad cultural and political systems in which a person lives. The first four systems are embedded in a fifth, the chronosystem, which refers to the dimension of time over the course of an individual’s life.

Germain and Gitterman (1980) developed ecosystems concepts into the “life model” of social work. The life model takes the view that people are “interdependent with each other and their environment” (Payne 2005, 151) and that people move through their own unique life course, facing along the way stressors, transitions, and events that will demand that they adapt or cope. Germain and Gitterman’s life model explored three stages of a person’s life—initial, ongoing, and ending. They identified how these stages can be used to learn about client-environment fit and stress, to develop plans for

Page 47: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

34 ● Anita Gibbs and Kate van Heugten

clients to adapt to stress or problem-solve their stressful interactions with systems, and to enable the client to reach a sense of connection to broader systems of influence in their lives (Germain and Gitterman 1980; Healy 2005).

To apply an ecosystems framework to Aleena’s case, it would be impor-tant to analyze the significant environments of influence in her life, at all five levels. At the microsystem level, significant influences would be her relationships with her children, her mother, her former or current partners, her friends, and community organizations (such as a religious congregation) in which she might be closely involved. The mesosystem refers to interac-tions between these microsystems. When microsystems work well together, they are more likely to successfully combine their efforts to support Aleena and her family. At the exosystem level, there might be interactions between Aleena and several, but not all, of the organizations that influence her and her children. Exosystems include social welfare agencies, health providers, educational systems, charitable organizations offering support, police, and potential employment systems. An analysis of exosystems would also con-sider the relationships and quality of communication between those orga-nizations. At the macrosystem level, Aleena would be impacted by societal constructions of mothering, gender roles, single parenthood, poverty, and government policies. Finally, the chronosystem identifies the impact of time, transitions, and life events on Aleena.

Pincus and Minahan (1973) suggested that, to intervene in an individual’s life using an ecosystems framework, a human service worker would, with the person’s full participation, define the “target system,” the part of the system that needs to change, and then collaboratively develop the “action system,” the system that builds the people and resources required to bring about change to the target system. From a life model perspective, assessment and intervention for Aleena would concentrate on transactions between the various systems in Aleena’s life and improving or changing those, rather than trying to identify or solve individual problems or the causes of problems (Healy 2005).

Anti-oppressive and Empowerment Frameworks

The anti-oppressive framework was first developed during the 1960s and 1970s; it aims to challenge oppressive structures and dominant ideologies in order to create a fairer, more just, and more inclusive society (Connolly and Healy 2013; Dominelli 1998). Originating in the United Kingdom, an anti-oppressive framework incorporates ideas and concepts from radical, Marxist, feminist, antiracist, and queer discourses. Dominelli (1998) has been particularly influential in developing feminist and antiracist social work and anti-oppressive practice.

Page 48: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Key Social Work Frameworks for Sociologists ● 35

Anti-oppressive thinking “requires recognition of the multiple and varied forms of oppression in society, and the ways in which people can be harmed by social inequality” (Connolly and Healy 2013, 27). According to Connolly and Healy (2013), Dalrymple and Burke (1995), Dominelli (1998), and Healy (2005), an anti-oppressive framework will

● analyze and deconstruct power relations in society and challenge expres-sions of power that cause and maintain oppression;

● identify oppression at multiple levels of diverse groups in society and seek to reduce the negative effects of inequality in people’s lives;

● take a collective and political position to overcome oppressive structures and discourses;

● empower clients and oppressed peoples to achieve autonomy, equality of opportunity, and equal access to resources;

● engage people, including human service professionals, in a process of critical self-examination and reflection, in order to facilitate engage-ment in the process of change;

● link personal oppression to structural analysis of oppression, including an acknowledgment of political, economic, welfare agency, organizational, and interpersonal contexts as locations for anti-oppressive practice.

An empowerment framework can be viewed as an element of the anti-oppressive approach, or as a framework in its own right. It has been linked to critical theory (Dalrymple and Burke 1995; Fook 2012). Empowerment allows for greater understanding of and change within the personal, rela-tional, political, and economic power and influences in a person’s life; it is focused on improvement and transformation (Gutierrez 1990). Use of an empowerment framework encourages the analysis and deconstruction of power embedded in narratives and discourses, from macrolevels through to microlevels, and helps to transform power relations (Connolly and Healy 2013; Fook 2012). Processes of deconstruction, resistance, challenge, and reconstruction can be used to enable people to understand the positive and negative effects of power in their lives, as well as to help them gain increased control over some areas of their lives.

Feminist frameworks, while distinct in their own right, have also been widely used in anti-oppressive social work, and these frameworks will resonate with sociologists. Feminist frameworks emphasize the importance of chal-lenging sexist political, institutional, and microlevel processes and practices. Feminist frameworks question male or patriarchal norms and definitions of knowledge and assert the interests of women across all domains of society (Payne 2005). An empowerment orientation is incorporated into feminist

Page 49: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

36 ● Anita Gibbs and Kate van Heugten

praxis, so that the exploitation of women is addressed, including the actions of social workers themselves in terms of their sometimes-unwitting contri-butions to the inequality and discrimination experienced by female clients (and sometimes by female colleagues). The strength gained from working collectively, with power sharing and consciousness raising, is crucial to effective feminist practice and achieving a reduction in oppression (Payne 2005).

Using an anti-oppressive framework to assist Aleena and her family would mean analyzing her circumstances through a radical lens. This lens would acknowledge Aleena’s disadvantage through poverty, sexism, and possibly racism, depending on her ethnicity. Human service workers would reflec-tively explore their own biases and stereotypes, as well as consider how their agency might perpetuate the oppression of families like Aleena’s. Action might need to be taken on a number of levels. At the societal or structural level, the social worker might join with a collective of concerned, like-minded workers to petition officials and politicians about poverty-related matters and try to implement better strategies to help people like Aleena escape the poverty trap. At the organizational level, a worker would use an empowerment orientation to challenge sexist, racist, or other discriminatory policies and practices. He or she might seek to introduce new policies focused on equal opportunity and equal access for a diverse staff and client population. At the individual level, depending on Aleena’s goals, the worker would support Aleena to help her gain a range of welfare benefit payments and educational or employment opportunities and would find ways of supporting Aleena to meet her needs and those of her children. If Aleena expressed dis-criminatory views toward others of, for example, a different ethnicity, then a worker using an anti-oppressive framework might challenge Aleena’s own stereotypes and help her develop new language and attitudes toward diverse populations.

Rights-Based Frameworks

A human rights focus aims to ensure that all citizens are granted a basic set of rights that support their well-being (Connolly 2013). International federations of social work and national associations of social workers adhere to a human rights framework, as well as codes of ethics and values (Connolly 2013). Human rights movements have shaped social work’s commitment to rights for particular groups: service users, people with disabilities and mental health issues, children, and indigenous groups. Human rights can be consid-ered both universal and specific to particular groups, as well as constructed and therefore not static (Ife 2012). Examples of widely accepted human rights (Banks 2006) include

Page 50: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Key Social Work Frameworks for Sociologists ● 37

● a right to life; ● a right to have basic needs met; ● a right to well-being, including receiving health and education services; ● a right to autonomy and self-determination; ● a right to be nurtured, valued, and respected; ● a right to freedom, including freedom from interference; ● a right to be treated as fully human.

Human rights are related to, but not the same as, moral rights and ethical principles (Banks 2006; Ife 2012). Moral rights include the right to be heard, to participate, and to choose care options; these moral rights are important but may not be fundamental to survival in the way that human rights can be (Connolly 2013). Ife (2012) described social work as a moral activity seeking social justice and good for all people, incorporating values and conceptions of right and wrong. Ethical principles and codes implement moral standards and are a significant focus for social work; they will be con-sidered in more detail in chapter 3. A generalized rights-based framework—incorporating human rights, moral rights, a range of values, and ethical principles—implies power sharing and cooperation, with vulnerable groups being viewed as experts in their own right, with the capacity to work col-lectively with others to find solutions to their own problems. A rights-based framework is underpinned by concepts of collectivist citizenship, “allowing for a collective expression and realisation of human rights” (Ife 2012, 63). It relies on participatory social democracy, which enables state-based agencies and their workers to work toward equality, participation, and social justice in society for all groups. A rights-based framework is overtly political and attempts to maximize citizens’ participation, including overcoming barriers that prevent participation.

Service-user-led movements of the 1980s and 1990s have succeeded in ensuring that a users’ rights perspective is used in social work (Beresford 2013). This perspective posits that service users should be empowered to exer-cise power and control over their lives, exert influence in all social domains, participate equally in society, and have their own initiatives validated and utilized (Beresford 2013; Dalrymple and Burke 1995; Healy 2005).

When human service professionals draw on a rights-based framework in their actions with people and communities, they are choosing to value diversity and to facilitate independence and inclusion for all people (Healy 2005). Human service professionals adopting this framework will ensure that they advocate for service users and other vulnerable groups, especially where structural inequalities have impacted such groups. A rights-based framework encourages practitioners to acknowledge that institutions of helping—like

Page 51: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

38 ● Anita Gibbs and Kate van Heugten

health, welfare, and education services—can potentially violate the rights of people and that they should therefore seek to transform these institutions at all levels. Language might also need to be accordingly transformed. As an example, Ife (2012) noted that terms such as engagement and strategy, which are often used in social work, are military terms, and these might be replaced by alternative terminology that emphasizes the importance of cooperative conversations. Ife also argued that policies that place barriers that physically prevent a person’s full participation in employment—for example, lack of legislation requiring full access for people with physical disabilities—would need to be replaced by policies that promote genuine access and participation (Ife 2012).

Rights-oriented treaties—such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—also influence social work activity toward specific groups of people, viewing these groups as having the right to voice and agency and the right to full participation in decision making in their own lives (Ife 2012). With respect to indigenous peoples, returning rightful control and autonomy has been a key strategy of the 1990s and 2000s. Anti-colonialist practice (Ife 2012) requires respect for indigenous people’s rights to develop and use their own indigenous models and frameworks in assisting their own people (see chapter 6 for a discussion on the importance of bicultural competence in practice).

From a rights-based framework, Aleena and her family would have rights to be kept safe, fed, and housed. Human service professionals would advocate for better housing in a safer area, as well as provision of adequate material resources and health services, as the bare minimum to enable Aleena’s well-being. These professionals would encourage Aleena and her children to voice their needs and concerns and to participate fully in decisions affecting them. A worker might also assist Aleena in accessing and participating in quality childcare and preschool education for her children. This might mean petitioning govern-ment agencies and charities to provide transport for Aleena and her children to places where such services are provided. Human service professionals would be careful in their use of language in their relationship with Aleena, avoiding labels and disempowering terms that suggest she is neglectful, welfare “depen-dent,” or mentally “unstable.” Empowerment and advocacy would be the main strategies of action utilized by human service professionals in this case.

Indigenous Frameworks

In many places where indigenous peoples have been colonized by other nations, the indigenous peoples have suffered crippling social, political, economic,

Page 52: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Key Social Work Frameworks for Sociologists ● 39

spiritual, cultural, and health impacts from oppression and colonization. It is therefore not surprising that, in countries that have experienced coloniza-tion and also have a well-established social work academy, alternative frame-works have developed. These frameworks focus on the self-determination of indigenous people, their rights to justice and equality, and the revaluing and restoration of indigenous knowledge and conceptual frameworks. Such frameworks are also used to analyze and intervene in areas where problems occur. Most indigenous peoples suffer disproportionately from significant social problems, including poverty, violence, racism, poor health, and addic-tions, in comparison with their nonindigenous counterparts. In a number of nations, indigenous peoples who have been at the margins for centuries are now voicing their right to use frameworks and practices that reflect their own cultures, ideologies, and ways of promoting the well-being of their own people.

The indigenous frameworks being developed in Aotearoa/New Zealand are illustrative of developments in a number of countries. The indigenous peoples of Aotearoa/New Zealand are Māori; they represent 15 percent of the nation’s population. For over 200 years, Māori have experienced and challenged the negative impacts of colonization. Within this context, social work has estab-lished two frameworks as the dominant approaches to working with both Māori and non-Māori clients: a bicultural framework and a kaupapa Māori framework, the latter embodying core Māori principles, practices, and knowledge.

The bicultural framework emanates from an understanding and application of the partnership principles in the Treaty of Waitangi. This treaty, signed in 1840 between representatives of the British Crown and over 500 Māori leaders, is the founding document of New Zealand (Ruwhiu 2013). The application of the Treaty of Waitangi’s principles—which include partnership, reciprocity, protection, indigenous rights, and independence—requires social workers to recognize the significance of historical relationships and become familiar with key ideas and actions associated with maintaining Māori well-being (Ruwhiu [2013] and chapter 6).

According to Munford and Sanders (2011) and Ruwhiu (2013), a bicultural framework will

● embrace both Māori and non-Māori cultural understandings, protocols, and practices;

● recognize the impact of political, economic, social, and cultural margin-alization on Māori as a consequence of colonization and the advantages gained by non-Māori through colonization;

● draw on the expertise offered by Māori models of social work used and valued by Māori communities;

Page 53: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

40 ● Anita Gibbs and Kate van Heugten

● encourage the development of new Māori models that incorporate Māori worldviews and ideologies;

● implement the use of appropriate customs, prayers, songs, hospitality, and gift-giving to structure encounters and relationships between Māori and non-Māori.

Munford and Sanders (2011) explored five key constructs of indigenous social work frameworks in Aotearoa/New Zealand. These are kaupapa, which embraces values, perspectives, and understandings of the work undertaken; mana, which focuses on respect for persons and acknowledgment of status, worth, and value; wairuatanga, an acknowledgment of the spiritual component in everything; whānau, the Māori construct for family, which includes imme-diate and extended family; and related to this, whakapapa, which incorporates ideas of connections to ancestors including the influence on identity and sense of self. Munford and Sanders (2011) also discussed the concepts of tikanga and kawa, referring to adherence to customs and the proper ways of doing things. The importance of tikanga and kawa cannot be underestimated in terms of the importance of building trust and positive relationships between Māori and non-Māori, as well as between Māori and other Māori.

The kaupapa Māori social work framework has developed from the kaupapa Māori movements of the 1980s, but kaupapa Māori thinking has been around for as long as Māori have existed (Walker, Eketone, and Gibbs 2006). Since colonization, Māori knowledge, language, culture, and prac-tices have been diminished, but kaupapa Māori thinking reasserts the right of Māori to speak their own language and to maintain and use their own cultural values and systems (Walker, Eketone, and Gibbs 2006). Kaupapa Māori incorporates many of the constructs of a bicultural or treaty-based framework, but its distinctiveness is tino rangatiratanga—that is “sovereignty, self-determination, governance, autonomy, and independence” (Pihama, Cram, and Walker 2002; Walker, Eketone, and Gibbs 2006, 333). A kaupapa Māori framework implements a Māori-centered approach, giving control and decision-making power to Māori communities, Māori human service profes-sionals, and Māori clients. Kaupapa Māori social work practice is aimed at benefits for Māori and is led by Māori practitioners who use explicit Māori concepts and protocols and the Māori language.

If Aleena or her children were of Māori affiliation, then a human service professional would approach her situation from an indigenous framework. A human service professional would arrange a face-to-face meeting with Aleena and, possibly, other significant family members and start the meeting with karakia (prayers) or whaikōrero (speeches), focused on appropriate introduc-tions and connections to each other and to ancestors. It is likely that Aleena

Page 54: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Key Social Work Frameworks for Sociologists ● 41

and her wider network would be offered a Māori social worker. Using either a bicultural or kaupapa Māori framework, Aleena’s difficulties would be viewed as resulting partly from the legacy of the decades of oppression and disadvan-tage that Māori people have experienced. Furthermore, a Māori social worker would use a broad range of Māori-based services and encourage members of Aleena’s extended networks to offer resources and support. Finally, a Māori social worker could help Aleena and her network identify areas in which Aleena would appreciate help to restore or strengthen links to her Māori identity and heritage.

Task-Centered Framework

Task-centered social work, using analysis and intervention that is “structured, focused and time limited” (Healy 2005, 112), has been influential in social work since the 1970s. It is a useful framework for problem-solving in the areas of interpersonal conflict, role performance, emotional distress, social transitions, and problems that can be easily identified as resolvable within short time frames (Epstein 1980; Healy 2005; Marsh and Doel 2005). A task-centered framework is underpinned by elements of behavioral and cognitive-behavioral theory, notably beliefs about the links between thought processes and behavior and the way new behavior can be learned to replace unacceptable or faulty behavior (Connolly and Healy 2013; Payne 2005). More recently, ecosystems and strengths approaches have been influencing task-centered work, enabling the broader context of problems to be acknowl-edged and facilitating the building of the client’s capacity to deal with his or her problems.

Connolly and Healy (2013), Healy (2005), Marsh and Doel (2005), and Payne (2005) have expressed the key tenets of a task-centered framework for practice:

● The framework is oriented toward the achievement of goals, along the lines of things have gone wrong for people, they experience problems, and these problems might be fixed by setting a goal to change things.

● Actions or interventions are focused on problem-solving but take the client’s definitions of problems and the client’s priorities. Intervention draws on client strengths to set achievable tasks, based on agreed goals to overcome problems.

● Clients and practitioners agree to work collaboratively and in partnership. ● Interventions have a change orientation, with a focus on easily identi-

fied practical tasks and the empowerment of clients as they accomplish these tasks.

Page 55: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

42 ● Anita Gibbs and Kate van Heugten

● Time frames are brief, and interventions focus on the achievement of small, measurable tasks.

● The framework has a behavioral or cognitive-behavioral focus, involving the challenging of self-defeating thinking and the modeling of construc-tive self-talk, attitudes, and language. This might also involve behavioral modification, such as desensitization or rewarding of desired behavior. Van Heugten (2011) has noted that such psychological interventions should be provided by qualified practitioners.

Proponents of a task-centered framework describe a number of phases to be implemented before work is completed (Epstein 1980; Marsh and Doel 2005; Payne 2005). A preintervention phase involves spending time with a client, exploring and understanding the context of their problems. Next, a series of steps is undertaken to explore and define target problems and rank them in order of priority for action. The practitioner and client agree to work together and then undertake goal setting, with specific statements of tasks to achieve the identified goals. The practitioner and client then iden-tify who will achieve which tasks and when. The next phase, problem-solving implementation, involves actually doing the work. This may involve refining the problems and the associated goals and tasks and reviewing the priorities. If goals have been completely or partially met, then the termination phase is reached. It is hoped that the client will have learned new skills, but some-times this has not occurred, and further, negotiated task-focused work may be necessary.

Although the task-centered framework enables action to be undertaken right away, which can be advantageous, it has been criticized as being too focused on individual problems, rather than connecting individuals to their wider social, organizational, or cultural contexts. It therefore misses opportunities to contribute to necessary contextual change or to enhance the individual’s well-being through dealing with social issues like poverty. In addition, because task-centered work tends to emphasize the “here and now,” it may miss the significance of trauma from past events in a client’s life.

If Aleena and her worker determined that Aleena might be assisted with a task-centered approach, a worker would meet with Aleena, and together they would identify the pressing problems in her life. The problem identifi-cation phase would be specific and would encourage Aleena to identify her priority concerns. These would then be targeted for action. The worker and Aleena would attempt to set specific goals, with time frames and measures of achievement. Each goal would be broken down into a series of tasks. Once one task had been achieved, work would begin on another task until enough

Page 56: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Key Social Work Frameworks for Sociologists ● 43

tasks were achieved to meet her overall goals. The cycle would be repeated until a noticeable change had occurred, but the intervention would probably not last more than six months. The aim would be to help Aleena gain small achievements in a short time and thereby build her capacity for further action based on using her own strengths.

Conclusion

This chapter has provided an overview of the main frameworks used by social workers that may be useful for sociologists. The frameworks provide a range of approaches to exploring, thinking, and acting on needs in individuals, families, and communities. The emphasis has been on praxis. Some of the key concepts will be considered further in the following chapters. In chapter 3, we revisit Aleena’s case study to explore key social work values and skills that can assist sociologists in developing their intervention skills when working with individuals, families, and communities.

Reflective Questions

1. This chapter has argued that the use of critical reflection in human service practice has specific implications for practice approaches, from assessment of situations confronted by clients through to interven-tions. Identify a current study or employment situation that you are finding problematic. Next apply the framework of critical reflection to this current study or employment situation. Consider whether you have found this to be useful and, if so, how?

2. Do you think that sociologists will be able to incorporate a range of social work frameworks, as considered in this chapter, into their own work environments? Do you think any of the frameworks are more applicable than are others?

3. How do you define human rights? Do you perceive differences in how sociologists and social workers consider the place of human rights? What human rights are of importance to sociologists and why?

4. Do you think it might be helpful for sociologists to increase their capacity to use social work frameworks and awareness of human rights in their everyday encounters? If so, what steps do you think you could take to develop your skills in using social work frameworks? How might awareness of human rights related issues be incorporated in praxis?

Page 57: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

44 ● Anita Gibbs and Kate van Heugten

References

Agger, Ben. 1998. Critical Social Theories: An Introduction. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Banks, Sarah. 2006. Ethics and Values in Social Work. 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Beresford, Peter. 2013. “Theory and Practice of User Involvement in Research: Making the Connection with Public Policy and Practice.” In Involving Service Users in Health and Social Care Research, edited by Lesley Lowes and Ian Hulatt, 6–17. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis.

Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loic J. D. Wacquant. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bronfenbrenner, Urie. 1979. The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Connolly, Marie. 2013. “Values and Human Rights.” In Social Work: Contexts and Practice. 3rd ed., edited by Marie Connolly and Louise Harms, 48–59. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Connolly, Marie, and Karen Healy. 2013. “Social Work Practice Theories and Frame-works.” In Social Work: Contexts and Practice. 3rd ed., edited by Marie Connolly and Louise Harms, 19–33. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Connolly, Marie, and Kate Morris. 2012. Understanding Child and Family Welfare. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Dalrymple, Jane, and Beverley Burke. 1995. Anti-oppressive Practice: Social Care and the Law. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

De Jong, Peter, and Insoo Kim Berg. 2001. “Co-constructing Cooperation with Mandated Clients.” Social Work 46 (4): 361–374. doi:10.1093/sw/46.4.361.

Dominelli, Lena. 1998. “Anti-oppressive Practice in Context.” In Social Work: Themes, Issues and Critical Debates, edited by Robert Adams, Lena Dominelli, and Malcolm Payne, 3–19. London: Macmillan.

Dybicz, Phillip. 2012. “The Hero(ine) on a Journey: A Postmodern Conceptual Framework for Social Work Practice.” Journal of Social Work Education 48 (2): 267–283. doi:10.5175/JSWE.2012.201000057.

Epstein, Laura. 1980. Helping People: The Task-Centered Approach. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby.Fook, Jan. 2012. Social Work: A Critical Approach to Practice. London: Sage.Fook, Jan, and Gurid Aga Askeland. 2006. “The ‘Critical’ in Critical Reflection.” In

Critical Reflection in Health and Social Care, edited by Sue White, Jan Fook, and Fiona Gardner, 40–54. New York: Open University Press.

Fook, Jan, and Fiona Gardner. 2012. Critical Reflection in Context: Applications in Health and Social Care. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis.

Fook, Jan, Sue White, and Fiona Gardner. 2006. “Critical Reflection: A Review of Contemporary Literature and Understandings.” In Critical Reflection in Health and Social Care, edited by Sue White, Jan Fook, and Fiona Gardner, 3–20. New York: Open University Press.

Germain, Carel, and Alex Gitterman. 1980. The Life Model of Social Work Practice. New York: Columbia University Press.

Page 58: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Key Social Work Frameworks for Sociologists ● 45

Gray, Mel. 2011. “Back to Basics: A Critique of the Strengths Perspective in Social Work.” Families in Society 92 (1): 5–11. doi:10.1606/1044-3894.4054.

Gutierrez, Lorraine M. 1990. “Working with Women of Color: An Empowerment Perspective.” Social Work 35 (2): 149–153. doi:10.1093/sw/35.2.149.

Healy, Karen. 2005. Social Work Theories in Context: Creating Frameworks for Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ife, Jim. 2012. Human Rights and Social Work: Towards Rights-Based Practice. 3rd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kisthart, Walter. 2002. “The Strengths Perspective in Interpersonal Helping.” In The Strengths Perspective in Social Work. 3rd ed., edited by Dennis Saleebey, 163–184. London: Allyn and Bacon.

Lehmann, Jennifer. 2006. “Telling Stories . . . and the Pursuit of Critical Reflection.” In Critical Reflection in Health and Social Care, edited by Sue White, Jan Fook, and Fiona Gardner, 201–212. New York: Open University Press.

Marsh, Peter, and Mark Doel. 2005. The Task-Centred Book. London: Routledge.Munford, Robyn, and Jackie Sanders. 2011. “Embracing the Diversity of Practice:

Indigenous Knowledge and Mainstream Social Work Practice.” Journal of Social Work Practice 25 (1): 63–77. doi:10.1080/02650533.2010.532867.

Payne, Malcolm. 2005. Modern Social Work Theory. 3rd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Pihama, Leonie, Fiona Cram, and Sheila Walker. 2002. “Creating Methodological Space: A Literature Review of Kaupapa Maori Research.” Canadian Journal of Native Education, 26(1): 30–43. http://www.lights.ca/sifc/cjne.htm.

Pincus, Allen, and Anne Minahan. 1973. Social Work Practice: Model and Method. Itasca, IL: Peacock.

Rapp, Charles. 1998. The Strengths Model. New York: Oxford University Press.Ruwhiu, Leland. 2013. “Making Sense of Indigenous Issues in Aotearoa New Zea-

land.” In Social Work: Contexts and Practice. 3rd ed., edited by Marie Connolly and Louise Harms, 124–137. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Saleebey, Dennis. 2002. The Strengths Perspective in Social Work. 3rd ed. London: Allyn and Bacon.

Sanders, Jackie, and Robyn Munford. 2010. Working with Families: Strengths-Based Approaches. Auckland: Dunmore.

Schön, Donald. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Temple Smith.

Trevithick, Pam. 2008. “Revisiting the Knowledge Base of Social Work: A Framework for Practice.” British Journal of Social Work 38 (6): 121–1237. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcm026.

van Heugten, Kate. 2011. Social Work under Pressure: How to Overcome Stress, Fatigue and Burnout in the Workplace. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Walker, Shayne, Anaru Eketone, and Anita Gibbs. 2006. “An Exploration of Kaupapa Māori Research, Its Principles, Processes and Application.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 9 (4): 331–344. doi:10.1080/13645570600916049.

Page 59: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

This page intentionally left blank

Page 60: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

CHAPtEr 3

Key Values, Ethics, and Skills for Working with People

Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

Introduction

This chapter discusses developments in social work thinking about values and ethics. It explores how values and ethics are expressed in practice, whether dealing with everyday value-based problems or with rarer, more intractable dilemmas. In-depth understanding of values and ethics in practice will pro-vide sociologists with tools to enhance their self-awareness, reflexivity, and capacity to work ethically with a range of service users. Many of the topics explored in this chapter will resonate with sociologists because sociologists also need to consider the impacts of their work on individuals and communi-ties and because sociologists, too, have ethical codes, particularly in relation to undertaking research. Sociologists’ understanding of the broader scope of ethical considerations that play out in human services practice may, however, be somewhat limited or tentative, and sociologists may gain from greater understanding of social work perspectives.

The chapter begins with an explanation of the relevance of values in practice and an exploration of the definitions of values and ethics. The history of ethical thinking in social work is briefly outlined, and an overview is given of some major ethical theoretical considerations and key concepts. Social work values are explored, taking into consideration their contested nature, as well as how these values relate to skills and practice frameworks. Finally, ethical dilemmas are discussed, and some specific ethical dilemmas arising from Aleena’s situation (introduced in chapter 2) are considered, to illustrate how ethical processes and models are used in work with individuals, families, and communities.

Page 61: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

48 ● Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

The Place of Values in Practice

Chapter 1 discusses the history of social work and sociology and some of the issues that underlie their separate developments, including the major differences of opinion that arose around the place of values. Sociologists have always studied values and had an interest in value change and the intersections of values and cultures, education, and class. The descriptive study of values in human systems has always been uncontroversial. Some sociologists, however, have believed that it is essential that researchers, theorists, and educators adopt a position of value neutrality, to ensure that they do not impose their biases on their field of study. They have avoided declaring their values and have tried to refrain from judging the rightness or wrongness of value positions (Shaw 2009).

Over recent decades, postpositivist sociologists and critical sociologists have argued that sociologists are not value-neutral and that they should declare their beliefs so that those become open to critique (Plummer 2010). This position became sufficiently widely accepted to find its way into official codes of ethics, such as the Code of Ethics of the Sociological Association of Aotearoa New Zealand (1990), which reads, “2(ii) Sociologists should recognise research as not neutral and should make explicit their epistemological postu-lates and assumptions.” Public sociologists go further by becoming engaged in active practice to achieve social justice, environmental sustainability, and solutions to social problems such as poverty (Jeffries 2009).

Beyond this, social work requires that practitioners incorporate values when making practical decisions. Because social work practice aims to achieve prosocial outcomes to benefit individuals and communities, values are at the core of practice interventions. Reamer (2013, 15) wrote that values influ-ence “(1) the nature of social work’s mission; (2) the relationships that social workers have with clients, colleagues, and members of the broader society; (3) the methods of intervention that social workers use in their work; and (4) the resolution of ethical dilemmas.” It is not possible to remain value-neutral, a mere observer, when undertaking social work practice. Nor is it possible for other social scientists to remain neutral when they become engaged in human service practice or policy development work. Choices that workers make in practice inevitably have implications for people’s lives. (Of course, this is also true in pure research, but the consequences are usually less imme-diately obvious.)

While they are expected to pursue value-laden goals, human service workers learn that they must also avoid imposing their own personal values on others. This suggests that there is a hierarchy of values whereby some are seen as disciplinary imperatives, and others as personal ideology.

Page 62: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Key Values, Ethics, and Skills for Working with People ● 49

Historically, social work textbooks tended to teach about values, codes of ethics, and human rights legislation without identifying them as social constructions. More recently, however, because so many communities are rapidly diversifying and workers are facing increasingly complex social problems, codified ethical rules have revealed their shortcomings. It has become more obvious that beliefs about justice and about what constitutes balanced solutions are constructed in a context of time and place. This has led to a new developmental phase in social work ethical theorizing, emphasizing the need for a better understanding of ethical philosophy (Banks 2008).

Unlike educators in disciplines that can remain theoretical, at least at the level of teaching, social work educators must tackle the complex topic of values and ethics in practice. Just as theorizing has become more complex, so too the frameworks for ethical decision making have evolved from simple to multi-plex, recognizing several possible outcomes in resolving practice dilemmas (Cowden and Pullen-Sansfacon 2014; Reamer 2013). Before considering practical approaches, however, we need to define values and differentiate ethical theory and ethical codes.

Definitions of Values and Ethics

Many people become confused about the difference between values and ethics. To clarify that confusion, the two terms must be defined.

Values

Values are beliefs or judgments about rights and wrongs, relating to attitudes, behaviors, and goals. Values are stronger than mere preferences, and profes-sionals often use the term as a synonym for the term “principle.”

Personal values relate to things we find meaningful and important. They are consciously held, and we can express them in words. Nevertheless, they might have developed out of unconscious group and personal influences, such as upbringing or life experiences (Cowden and Pullen-Sansfacon 2014). For example, we might know that we value animal life, and we might be vegetarian and take action to support animal rights. But we might have long since forgotten an extraordinarily kind or cruel act that we observed that inspired our value. Likewise, we might be unaware that our valuing of the lives of all creatures is part of our cultural heritage until we travel abroad and observe a different value. Values can be individual, but it is easier to adhere to them when we have group support. We might receive support from family or friends, animal rights groups, or religious or professional groups. Disapproval from parents during childhood and from peers in our teenage years also powerfully shapes values.

Page 63: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

50 ● Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

We tend to rank our values, and we can often resolve ethical problems by acting to support higher-ranked values over lower ones. For example, it is quite common to value human life over animal life. We might rank the preserva-tion of life higher than property rights and act accordingly. There are many reasons for the ranking of values; not all of them are necessarily declared or even consciously understood.

Most occupational groups, especially in the helping professions, share sets of values. Frequently identified social work values include social justice and human rights (Banks 2006). These values are clearly general, and human service workers widely, perhaps even universally, accept them—that is, until they are explicated in more detail. The more specifically that values are artic-ulated, the more local their relevance tends to become and the more readily they are disputed from different cultural perspectives (Hugman 2012).

Professional values are often not explicit about political or ideological positions, even though it is likely that they will be found to reflect such posi-tions if carefully examined (Banks 2006, 2012). Taking a step back in this way—in other words, being critically reflective—is generally easier to do from a historically or culturally aware perspective. There are various frame-works for making decision about values, as we shall see later in this chapter, but understanding one’s own values, and questioning the often-obscured contextual nature of many values, are important steps in all cases.

Human service practitioners encounter many situations where value-laden decisions have to be made. Fortunately less common, are dilemmas in which practitioners have to choose between two or more incompatible but equally highly ranked values. Ethical theorizing is concerned with such situations.

Ethics

Banks (2006) explained that the term “ethics” is used in two quite different ways. The first use is in relation to ethical philosophy and ethical theoriz-ing. Ethical philosophy is concerned with the study of moral problems and moral thinking. This philosophy recognizes three types of ethical thinking: meta-ethics, normative ethics, and descriptive ethics. Meta-ethics comprises critical thinking about the nature of morality: whether it is possible to judge rights and wrongs and whether good and evil can be distinguished. Norma-tive ethics is concerned with whether and how moral decisions can be made and dilemmas can be resolved. Descriptive ethics relates to the study of how people relate to values and moral questions. Being descriptive, this third field of study does not aim to develop ethical theory. Descriptive ethics tends to be of less interest to philosophers, but it is of vital interest to sociologists and anthropologists (Banks 2006).

Page 64: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Key Values, Ethics, and Skills for Working with People ● 51

Human service work involves all three types of ethical thinking. Meta-ethical thinking deals with big questions; it underpins the development of guidelines for ethical decision making. For example, whether we believe values to be uni-versal or relative will determine the importance we are likely to place on inquiring into multiple perspectives. In practice, however, human service workers tend to be more closely concerned with normative and descriptive ethics. They engage in normative ethics when they explore how ethical questions can be resolved to arrive at appropriate courses of action. They engage in descriptive ethics when they seek to understand the values of service users and other groups. Unless they are undertaking pure research, however, they are likely to undertake descriptive study as a data-gathering step toward resolving a problem or dilemma or toward gaining understanding of service users’ perspectives in order to more accurately represent them.

The second use of the term ethics—and the one most familiar to many practitioners—relates to ethics as rules of moral conduct and standards of moral behavior (Banks 2006). Codes of ethics attempt to collect these rules or standards together into consistent frameworks; these can function as (limited) tools for decision making, depending on how clearly they are set out. Codes of ethics are social constructs, but they have usually gone through much development, and long-standing codes have been well tested in practice. In chapter 1, we introduce Jane Addams, a social worker and public sociologist who argued in the early twentieth century that practice amended and honed ethical theories, making them more applicable to real life (Seigfried 2013). Addams was a pragmatic ethicist, and in claiming this, she was well ahead of many of her contemporaries. When practitioners, educators, and professional bodies have honed professional codes over time, those codes are usually reasonably robust. For everyday practi-cal purposes, they are unlikely to contain major internal contradictions, and they normally cover all of the important relationships that a professional worker might have, with clients, colleagues, self, agency, and profession.

Nonetheless, codes of ethics are lists of rules that arise within a historical and political context. They might be well suited to standard practices, but when workers are suddenly required to work in a different context, the codes may prove to be less comprehensive than they had previously appeared. Their applicability also varies between cultures, even within one country. This has become increasingly clear as communities have become more multicultural and as awareness of cultural diversity has increased. For example, there are large differences between individualistic and communitarian cultures around beliefs in the importance of confidentiality and privacy, self-determination, and filial obligations (Reamer 2006).

Ideally, such lack of fit becomes evident over time, and codes develop to keep pace. In reality, however, workers usually do not refer to codes in their

Page 65: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

52 ● Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

daily practice (Banks 2008), and they often do not do so until they strike a critical dilemma or need to defend themselves against accusations of hav-ing breached their code (van Heugten 2011b). Consequently, serious gaps can emerge suddenly and without warning. For example, social workers and other human service professionals have found that codes have not adequately addressed major questions that arise in disaster contexts, when helping can endanger a worker’s life or health, but service users will suffer severe distress if they are abandoned (Rosoff 2008). Later in this chapter, Aleena’s situation will be used to illustrate some of these less easily resolved dilemmas.

Another criticism that has been leveled against codes is that they are pre-scriptive and therefore do not encourage practitioners to think through prob-lems (Cowden and Pullen-Sansfacon 2014). Researchers have also found that human service workers, including social workers, rate organizational rules or codes more highly than they do professional codes (Hugman 2012). This is understandable because organizational rules tend to more explicitly relate to the problems that workers face on a daily basis. In addition, one’s employ-ment may depend on abiding by organizational rules. This worker preference for organizational rules can, however, negatively affect an occupation’s ethical position and professional autonomy. For all their imperfections, professional codes reflect a professional community’s principled thinking about rights and responsibilities. All members of the professional community have input rights into ethical codes (which is not the case with organizational rules), and these codes are therefore widely accepted as reflecting that community’s ethical beliefs. Furthermore, ethical codes provide service users with some certainty around what they can expect from an encounter with a professional. Codes can also help workers challenge organizational expectations if those expectations conflict with professional principles (Hugman 2012).

Codes of ethics may not be available to human service workers who are not members of professional organizations. Alternatives could include union memberships or laws, such as human rights legislation, which might func-tion as tools for making ethical decisions. As Banks (2012) noted, however, laws can only point out what we may and may not do, not what we should or should not do.

Historical Shifts in Thinking about Values and Ethics

From this brief discussion of definitions, it is clear that professional values and the ethical rules around their enactment vary between communities. Values and ethical codes evolve, reflecting shifts in global and community values. Those shifts in turn occur within economic, sociopolitical, and historical contexts.

Page 66: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Key Values, Ethics, and Skills for Working with People ● 53

In line with the discussion in chapter 1, other social work authors who have addressed the topic of values and ethics have pointed to a long-standing tension in social work values, between the personal and the political—the casework movement, on one hand, and the settlement movement, on the other (Cowden and Pullen-Sansfacon 2014). Despite practice frameworks emphasizing that the personal is political and that it is important to think of personal problems in a political context, workers often choose to put more effort into one end or the other of the micro- to macrocontinuum. To an extent, this obscures the sometimes difficult dilemmas that can arise between individual needs and social or political ideals. Helping a person or a family might obscure a wider social issue, and dealing with the social issue might leave a family in distress for a longer time.

In the United Kingdom, Banks (2006) traced broad changes in social work values around these two trajectories, from an individual casework orientation in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to communitarian per-spectives through most of the rest of the twentieth century and back to more individualistic values under the rise of neoliberalism over recent decades.

Writing from the United States, Reamer (2006) pointed to a morality period during the late nineteenth century when human service workers were concerned with improving the morality of clients. This shifted during the period of the settlements in the early twentieth century, at least for num-bers of social workers who became concerned with social justice and poverty. These concerns were also prominent during the time of the Great Depression in the 1930s. In 1947, the American Association of Social Workers ratified its first code of ethics; core values and core principles were refined by many similar associations in other countries over the following decades. Reamer identified the 1960s and 1970s as a period in which social workers became concerned with values clarification—how to align personal and professional values. Beginning in the 1970s, members of the profession began to turn their minds to applied ethics. This was prompted by advancing technology in health care and concerns over scarcity of financial and other resources to help all who needed care. The civil rights movements of the 1970s also drew attention to practical ethical concerns (Reamer 2006).

Internationally, risk management has become a significant focus over recent decades. Many organizations, including registration bodies, focus on management of practitioners’ ethical conduct and management of the risk of litigation from service users (Reamer 2013; van Heugten 2011a).

Alongside this focus on risk management, since the 1980s, theorists and practitioners have begun to draw attention to the complexity of ethical dilemmas and ethical decision making and to the reality that it is not always possible to arrive at perfectly balanced decisions that will satisfy all those

Page 67: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

54 ● Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

involved (Banks 2012; Gray and Gibbons 2007). Like other professions, the social work profession has now turned its attention to the relevance of ethical philosophy and ethical theory (Banks 2008). Social work educators have begun to realize that it is not sufficient to teach students about codes of ethics and about rule-based processes for solving dilemmas. Educators are moving away from an emphasis on codes and are instead teaching students about theories of values and ethics. This introduces prospective human service prac-titioners to ethical thinking, so that they are equipped to analyze complex dilemmas when they encounter them in their working lives (Cowden and Pullen-Sansfacon 2014).

Ethical Theories Underpinning Ethical Decision Making

Social work ethical thinking has tended to reflect common ethical theories dating back to eighteenth century Europe. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that we should treat individuals with respect, as being ends in themselves, and not use individuals as means to other goals. Also, in the eighteenth century, John Stuart Mills proposed a utilitarian ethical theory, which privileges decisions that achieve the greatest good or happiness for the greatest number of people. In contrast to Kantian ethical thinking, utilitarianism discounts the particular experiences of individuals (Banks 2006; Cowden and Pullen-Sansfacon 2014).

Social work ethical thinking has tended to reflect Kantian principles, although not in a purist form. This thinking has recognized that to always prioritize commitments and responsibilities to individuals might harm many people but to sacrifice the individual to the greater good might lead to signifi-cant harm to some, to an extent that most people would consider inhumane (Banks 2006).

These earlier rationalist ethical theories were located in a historical con-text when theorists looked for universal scientific rules to solve big social questions. Today, by contrast, ethical theorists are more likely to emphasize interpersonal relationships that reflect commitments of care, and relational contracts between workers and service users that involve principles such as trust and responsibility (Banks 2008). Concepts such as practical reasoning and close consideration of power and oppression also pervade recent debates (Cowden and Pullen-Sansfacon 2014).

The movement away from the idea of universal values has inevitably raised questions about how this might further complicate the resolving of ethical dilemmas. Hugman (2012) pointed out that the complexities of resolving ethical dilemmas arise not only from worker-client interactions but also in multidisciplinary teams because of the differing perspectives held by the

Page 68: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Key Values, Ethics, and Skills for Working with People ● 55

various practitioners. Rather than regretting this plurality and attempting to erase moral disagreements, however, he suggested that disagreement could be a strength in solving ethical problems. Different positions do not necessarily need to be forced into compatibility but can instead be used to refine and check our thinking (Hugman 2012).

The following sections of this chapter outline social work values in more detail and explore how these values underpin the practice frameworks used when practitioners work with vulnerable people. Finally, we consider the eth-ical dilemmas that might be faced by human service workers in Aleena’s case, and how these might be resolved.

Social Work Values

Reamer (2006, 22) identified 14 commonly cited core social work values:

Individual worth and dignity, respect of people, valuing individuals’ capacity for change, client self-determination, providing individuals with opportunity to realize their potential, seeking to meet individuals’ common human needs, seeking to provide individuals with adequate resources and services to meet their basic needs, client empowerment, equal opportunity, nondiscrimination, respect for diversity, commitment to social change and social justice, confiden-tiality and privacy, and willingness to transmit professional knowledge and skills to others.

Many other texts have been written on values, and as Reamer (2013, 24) has also noted, these tend to include the same or similar “classic” core values (Banks 2006, 2012; Braye and Preston-Shoot 2005; Chenoweth and McAuliffe 2012; Connolly 2013; O’Connor et al. 2008; Shardlow 2013). Indige-nous writers additionally highlight the importance of including culturally appropriate values. In Aotearoa/New Zealand, for example, Ruwhiu (2013) wrote about the need for the incorporation of wairuatanga (philosophy and spirituality), whakapapa (relational development), tikanga/kawa (protocols of engagement), mauri ora (well-being), mana (respect), and ko au (inter-connectedness). It is important to note that indigenous values may not be defined as values in the traditional sense but nevertheless do act as founda-tions to practice models and ethical decision making when practitioners work within indigenous contexts.

A number of authors have discussed different types of social work values—for example, personal, professional, organizational, radical, and traditional (Braye and Preston-Shoot 1995; Chenoweth and McAuliffe 2012; O’Connor et al. 2008; Shardlow 2013). The International Federation of Social Work, as well as national associations of social workers, have produced statements

Page 69: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

56 ● Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

of professional values and linked these to codes of professional conduct and ethics that members agree to adhere to in their practice as social workers (Connolly 2013; Shardlow 2013). Because there are such diverse sources of values, including personal, professional, and organizational, it is inevitable that there will be instances of value conflict (Postle 2007). An example of a commonly occurring value conflict—professional versus organizational—is given by Postle (2007, 254): “Values conflict where the context for social work appears to privilege the need to process work as fast as possible, con-stantly aware that there are always far more people needing services than there are staff to work with them or resources to meet their needs.”

In such situations, the organization’s bureaucratic goals might clash with the professional’s concern for quality and flexibility. Organizational and pro-fessional values might also conflict when risk avoidance is prioritized above service users’ rights to self-determination, protection, or preventive (early inter-vention) services (Postle 2007). Because values play such an important part in decision making, it is vital that social workers identify what their own prefer-ences are and how these preferences connect to or diverge from other value positions. Sociologists likewise need to carefully reflect on what is of worth and value to them in their developing relationships with vulnerable people.

When it comes to direct practice with service users, value judgments must be made on a daily basis and used in conjunction with a wide variety of social work skills (see next section). Value judgments compel human service professionals to assign importance and worth to relationships. For example, caring relationships will be positively valued, and abusive relationships will be negatively valued (Connolly 2013; Connolly and Ward 2008). Some of these value judgments have been incorporated into specific practice frameworks that can be used to guide human service professionals in a particular context. These frameworks draw on selective theories, knowledge, methods, ethics, research, critical reflec-tion, and experience (Chenoweth and McAuliffe 2012; O’Connor et al. 2008). Some examples of international practice frameworks are the Care and Protec-tion Practice Framework, the Youth Justice Practice Framework, the Offender Practice Framework, the Framework for Social Work and Human Service Prac-tice, and Empowering Practice (Braye and Preston-Shoot 1995; Connolly and Ward 2008; O’Connor et al. 2008). While it is beyond the scope of this book to explore such practice frameworks in depth, sociologists are encouraged to be aware of the potential usefulness of these frameworks in practice.

Social Work Skills

Social work uses a distinct set of skills that distinguish it as a practice-based and interventionist profession. While it is not possible to highlight every

Page 70: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Key Values, Ethics, and Skills for Working with People ● 57

skill, we will consider the core skills required to practice ethically, with social justice as a main outcome.

The consensus among most writers is that the core skills include com-municating, building and maintaining meaningful relationships, assessing, interviewing, empowering, and using the self (Braye and Preston-Shoot 1995; Lymbery and Postle 2007; O’Connor et al. 2008; Trevithick 2012; Worsley et al. 2013). Trevithick (2012) argued that social work’s distinctive approach comes from the professional experience of working with people from deprived and socially excluded sectors of society, as well as the use of ethics and values to ensure that social justice is achieved. In her influential text, Social Work Skills and Knowledge, Trevithick explored 80 skills and inter-ventions (Trevithick 2012), which she grouped into five skill set domains:

● communication, observation, listening, and assessment skills ● interviewing skills ● helping and giving direction and guidance ● empowerment, negotiation, and partnership skills ● professional competence and accountability

She argued that communication skills, the primacy and quality of the relationship between social workers and clients, and the capacity to support or grow people’s well-being are fundamental to social work.

The use of self includes being mindful of one’s own values and the unique approaches that underpin one’s everyday professional decisions and actions. Use of self is about the ability to integrate thinking and feeling; it allows for “the exploration of personal experiences, values and political beliefs” (Harrison and Ruch 2007, 42). Use of self allows a human service professional to identify areas of skill and value preferences that are either congruent with or potentially in conflict with professional preferences or codes (O’Connor et al. 2008). Use of self allows a professional to act in light of the understanding that plural identities and perspectives exist in the complex fields of human suffering.

Chapter 2 highlights the need for social workers to be critically reflective when they approach work with people. This critical reflection complements the use of self, as critical reflection enables questions to be asked of the self as well as of others. Critical reflection clarifies and questions “how power is operat-ing in relationships with others” (O’Conner et al. 2008, 87). Being mindful to ask, “Why did I do that or why did that happen?” enables practitioners to challenge their everyday actions (Harrison and Ruch 2007, 44). Being criti-cally reflective allows professionals to distinguish between their own personal knowledge and experiences and their professional ones, to understand where

Page 71: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

58 ● Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

conflicts emerge, and to seek assistance when problems are not easily solved using their own skills.

Critical reflection can occur at any time when practitioners are helping others, and it can be enhanced by careful use of supervision. Supervision pro-vides practitioners the opportunity to reflect on their decisions and actions; to raise questions about their agency’s practice protocols; to consider the appro-priate use of values and ethics; and to evaluate which particular decisions, with hindsight, achieved the best outcomes for service users. Effective supervisors assist practitioners in rethinking their helping skills and interventions; these supervisors also remind the practitioners of core social work purposes and values and help practitioners consider the application of codes of conduct and ethical decision models in the particular situations in which practitioners find themselves (Davys and Beddoe 2010).

The core skills of building and maintaining meaningful relationships require the practitioner to possess a number of personal qualities, including a concern for others, empathy, acceptance, commitment to the client, under-standing and using power and authority, being capable of explaining the limits of confidentiality, and positive role modeling (O’Connor et al. 2008). Achiev-ing these qualities takes years of practice, experience, reflective learning, and determination. If a human service professional is not able to be empathic, for example, the service users with whom the professional works will be unlikely to believe that the professional is acting in the users’ best interests. Human service professionals work with service users to build trust; these professionals also model the kinds of behavior and attitudes that they are asking the service user to consider when a formal or mandated relationship has been established (Trotter 2004).

This chapter has focused on the skills relevant to ethical practice. Subsequent chapters consider core social work skills used in specific situa-tions or contexts: chapter 4 explores the skills needed to work with children and families; chapter 5, the skills needed to work with groups; chapter 6, the bicultural skills needed to work with indigenous groups; and chapter 7, the skills needed for solving social problems. Chapter 8 covers workplace stress, and chapter 9 discusses research mindedness.

Resolving Ethical Dilemmas

Ethical dilemmas occur when human service professionals are confronted by a difficult choice between actions, such as whether to promote vulnerable people’s independence over their safety (Shardlow 2013, 81). These dilemmas can arise from differences between personal and professional or organizational values or from a clash between generic human rights and local cultural practices.

Page 72: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Key Values, Ethics, and Skills for Working with People ● 59

Another ethical dilemma for human service professionals can arise over the clash between maintaining confidentiality in the best interests of the client and breaching confidentiality in the name of public interest or to achieve the greater good. Ethical dilemmas challenge the practitioner’s determination to uphold ethical principles; it is not always possible to “do no harm,” allow full self-determination, or maintain clear professional-private boundaries. For guidance with resolving such ethical dilemmas, professionals might turn to their code of professional practice or to their professional association. They might also employ specific ethical decision-making models, such as those advocated by Guttmann (2006), Reamer (2006), and O’Connor et al. (2008).

Guttmann (2006, 166) believed that ethical dilemmas mostly occur around “matters of power, equity, and just distribution of scarce resources.” He wrote that the main duty of social workers is caring for clients, treat-ing them equally and respectfully. In his model, social workers must employ three essential principles in ethical decision making: autonomy, beneficence, and justice. While the principles may conflict with each other in particular situations, they all need to be applied to an ethical dilemma. Guttmann also argued, however, that autonomy, or client self-determination, is the decisive principle.

Reamer (2006, 73–85) held that ethical decision making needs to be systematic. He formulated a seven-step model, involving the sequential identification of essential elements:

1. The ethical issues, including where social work values and duties conflict

2. The people likely to be impacted by an ethical decision3. The potential actions arising from ethical decision making and the

positive and negative impacts of these actions4. The ethical theories, rules and principles, codes, legalities, practice, and

personal values5. The colleagues and experts who need to be consulted6. The decision and the documenting of the decision-making process7. The follow-up required and the evaluation needed

Reamer suggested that this systematic model be applied to ethical dilem-mas involving clashes between personal and professional values, and when there are conflicts of interests, or concerns about privacy, confidentiality, and self-determination.

O’Connor et al. (2008) identified several models of ethical decision making: process, reflective, and cultural models. They opted for a process model based on clear definitions of the problem, a phase of gathering detailed information through consulting with others, a phase of reflection on the

Page 73: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

60 ● Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

ethical choices that could be made, and then, ultimately, the making of an ethically informed decision. O’Connor et al. (2008) noted that all ethical decisions are connected to our own values, life experiences, and beliefs and that we must critically reflect on these in our practice.

Resolving Ethical Dilemmas in Aleena’s Situation

Having highlighted a range of ethical dilemmas, values, and skills, we now turn to Aleena’s situation (chapter 2) and explore some of the ethical dilemmas that a human service professional might encounter when working with this family and how those might be resolved.

Aleena and her family are having a tough time. There are concerns about the potential neglect of her children and about Aleena’s own well-being. Here is an example of an ethical dilemma that could arise: Aleena lives on welfare benefit payments, but she cannot make ends meet, so she engages in occasional shoplifting sprees. A human service worker becomes aware of this and experiences dilemmas around the following questions: “Should I confront Aleena about her illegal behavior?” “Should I report Aleena to the police?” “Should I overlook this behavior, because I know she has to feed her children?” Another ethical dilemma might occur if a worker discovers that Aleena is consuming large amounts of alcohol to help relieve her feelings of depression. Again, the worker might ask a series of questions: “Is Aleena ‘wrong’ to self-medicate by drinking alcohol?” “Is Aleena harming herself or her children when she drinks?” “Should I breach client confidentiality and talk to my agency manager or someone else about Aleena’s situation?”

Drawing on ethical principles and decision-making models and applying social work skills, a human service worker might begin to help Aleena by initiating a meeting with her at her home or in an alternative place where Aleena feels comfortable meeting the worker. If the worker has not already established a supportive, helping relationship with Aleena, then the first task for the human service worker will be to use his or her skills of communication, respect, and engagement to effect such a relationship. If a meeting is agreed on, the worker will need to clearly articulate the focus of the meeting while, in a spirit of partnership and collaboration, asking Aleena what her wishes and needs are for the meeting. If the relationship is legally mandated, the building of trust may take a long time or may never be achieved. The worker will need to make a judgment on how urgent the ethical dilemmas are and whether there are more pressing matters with which Aleena and her family need to be assisted. The issues of Aleena’s shoplifting and her excessive drinking cause conflict between confidentiality and privacy, between self-determination and paternalism, and between the professional and personal values of the worker.

Page 74: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Key Values, Ethics, and Skills for Working with People ● 61

Social work codes of ethics typically require that limitations of confidentiality be explained to service users. When that protocol is followed, the confidential-ity dilemma is less likely to arise. Appropriate practice protocols also ensure that workers make decisions not in isolation but as members of professional teams and that workers have professional supervision in which to discuss difficult issues.

By drawing on ethical decision-making process models, the worker will attempt to define the extent and impacts of the ethical dilemmas. This involves gathering as much information as possible, drawing on many sources: interviews with Aleena and Aleena’s children, and consultations with a whole range of support groups and services. It would also involve reading the literature, legislation, and practice manuals. It would also include consult-ing with others, who could be line managers, colleagues, or other relevant stakeholders. The ethical dilemmas will then need to be considered in light of ethics theory and principles, for example, Guttmann’s work (2006). First, the worker will need to critically reflect on the tensions between wanting the best for Aleena (principle of beneficence) and wanting Aleena to maintain her autonomy—which would be challenged if, for example, the worker sug-gested that Aleena reduce her drinking. Second, the worker would need to resolve how to achieve just (social justice) outcomes for both the mother and her children. Some of these needs might be able to be met equitably by, for example, advocating for increased childcare support to allow positive experi-ences for Aleena’s children and respite time for Aleena. But achieving just outcomes for both Aleena as well as her children might pose ethical dilem-mas because the need to protect the children from the harmful effects of their mother’s excessive alcohol intake might lead to their needs being placed above hers. Regarding Aleena’s illegal shoplifting activity, the worker will need to be mindful of agency guidance on such matters because there may be specific protocols for reporting such behavior, thus taking some of the decision making out of the worker’s hands. In order to make a fully informed ethical decision, the worker will need to consult ethics codes, relevant legisla-tion, agency policy, and professional standards or rules. Most important, the worker will critically reflect on decisions that are made, both during and after the decision making. The decisions may need to be reviewed in light of their impacts or any new information.

Throughout any decision-making process, the worker must understand his or her own motives and values and continue to apply core skills—like empathy, positive regard of the client, and use of self—in all dealings with Aleena. In order to achieve a positive outcome for Aleena and her family, the worker will need to be knowledgeable and competent in a diverse array of values, ethics, and skills.

Page 75: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

62 ● Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

Conclusion

This chapter has introduced key social work thinking in the domains of values, ethics, and skills. It is by necessity introductory, and further reading is detailed in the references. This chapter also provides a base for readers to move forward into part II of this book, where detailed examples of social work theory and practice are applied to specific domains of interest to sociologists and other social scientists.

Reflective Questions

1. List some core values that are important to you. Can you identify values that you think all, or most, sociologists will believe to be important? To what extent do you think these overlap with social work values and values that are relevant to human service practice?

2. To what extent and how is the idea of “the use of self ” relevant to sociologists in their place of study or employment? How can sociologists develop self-awareness?

3. Should sociologists seek out professional supervision to enhance their accountability and/or consideration of ethical issues in their work environments?

4. What ethical principles do sociologists already apply in research and practice?

References

Banks, Sarah. 2006. Ethics and Values in Social Work. 3rd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

———. 2008. “Critical Commentary: Social Work Ethics.” British Journal of Social Work 38 (6): 1238–1249. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcn099.

———. 2012. Ethics and Values in Social Work. 4th ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Braye, Suzy, and Michael Preston-Shoot. 1995. Empowering Practice in Social Care.

Buckingham: Open University Press.Chenoweth, Lesley, and Donna McAuliffe. 2012. The Road to Social Work and Human

Service Practice. 3rd ed. Melbourne: Cengage Learning.Connolly, Marie. 2013. “Values and Human Rights.” In Social Work: Contexts and

Practice. 3rd ed., edited by Marie Connolly and Louise Harms, 48–59. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Connolly, Marie, and Tony Ward. 2008. Morals, Rights and Practice in the Human Services. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Cowden, Stephen, and Annie Pullen-Sansfacon. 2014. The Ethical Foundations of Social Work. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis.

Page 76: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Key Values, Ethics, and Skills for Working with People ● 63

Davys, Allyson, and Liz Beddoe. 2010. Best Practice in Professional Supervision. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Gray, Mel, and Jill Gibbons. 2007. “There Are No Answers, Only Choices: Teaching Ethical Decision Making in Social Work.” Australian Social Work 60 (2): 228–238. doi:10.1080/03124070701323840.

Guttmann, David. 2006. Ethics in Social Work: A Context of Caring. New York: Haworth Press.

Harrison, Kaeren, and Gillian Ruch. 2007. “Social Work and the Use of Self: On Becoming and Being a Social Worker.” In Social Work: A Companion to Learning, edited by Mark Lymbery and Karen Postle, 40–50. London: Sage.

Hugman, Richard. 2012. Culture, Values and Ethics in Social Work: Embracing Diversity. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis.

Jeffries, Vincent. 2009. Handbook of Public Sociology. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

Lymbery, Mark, and Karen Postle, eds. 2007. Social Work: A Companion to Learning. London: Sage.

McAuliffe, Donna, and Lesley Chenoweth. 2008. “Leave No Stone Unturned: The Inclusive Model of Ethical Decision Making.” Ethics and Social Welfare 2 (1): 38–49. doi:10.1080/17496530801948739.

O’Connor, Ian, Jill Wilson, Deborah Setterlund, and Mark Hughes. 2008. Social Work and Human Service Practice. 5th ed. Frenchs Forrest, NSW: Pearson Educa-tion Australia.

Plummer, Kenneth. 2010. Sociology: The Basics. New York: Routledge.Postle, Karen. 2007. “Value Conflicts in Practice.” In Social Work: A Companion to

Learning, edited by Mark Lymbery and Karen Postle, 251–260. London: Sage.Reamer, Frederic G. 2006. Social Work Values and Ethics. 3rd ed. New York: Columbia

University Press.———. 2013. Social Work Values and Ethics. 4th ed. New York: Columbia University

Press.Rosoff, Philip M. 2008. “The Ethics of Care: Social Workers in an Influenza Pandemic.”

Social Work in Health Care 47 (1): 49–59. doi:10.1080/00981380801970814.Ruwhiu, Leland. 2013. “Making Sense of Indigenous Issues in Aotearoa New Zealand.”

In Social Work: Contexts and Practice. 3rd ed., edited by Marie Connolly and Louise Harms, 124–137. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Seigfried, Charlene Haddock. 2013. “The Social Self in Jane Addams’s Prefaces and Introductions.” Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society: A Quarterly Journal in American Philosophy 49 (2): 127–156. doi:10.2979/trancharpeirsoc.49.2.127.

Shardlow, Stephen. 2013. “Values.” In Key Concepts in Social Work Practice, edited by Aidan Worsley, Tim Mann, Angela Olsen, and Elizabeth Mason-Whitehead, 281–285. London: Sage.

Shaw, Ian. 2009. “Rereading the Jack-Roller: Hidden Histories in Sociology and Social Work.” Qualitative Inquiry 15 (7): 1241–1264. http://qix.sagepub.com/.

Sociological Association of Aotearoa New Zealand. 1990. Code of Ethics. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxuenNvY2lvbG9neXxneDo0YzY0ZWJmNDg1NzYxNGVj.

Page 77: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

64 ● Kate van Heugten and Anita Gibbs

Trevithick, Pam. 2012. Social Work Skills and Knowledge. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Trotter, Chris. 2004. Helping Abused Children and Their Families. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen and Unwin.

van Heugten, Kate. 2011a. “Registration and Social Work Education: A Golden Opportunity or a Trojan Horse?” Journal of Social Work 11 (2): 174–190. doi:10.1177/1468017310386695.

———. 2011b. Social Work under Pressure: How to Overcome Stress, Fatigue and Burn-out in the Workplace. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Worsley, Aidan, Tim Mann, Angela Olsen, and Elizabeth Mason-Whitehead, eds. 2013. Key Concepts in Social Work Practice. London: Sage.

Page 78: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

PArt II

Application of Social Work Frameworks to Practice with Families, Organizations,

and Communities

Page 79: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

This page intentionally left blank

Page 80: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

CHAPtEr 4

Moving from risk to Safety: Work with Children and Families

in Child Welfare Contexts

Emily Keddell and Tony Stanley

Introduction

Child welfare is an emotive and complicated area of social work practice. Child welfare not only has its own internal complexities but also attracts immense political and media scrutiny every time a child abuse tragedy plays out. In addition, the working lives of human service workers take place inside organizations that are themselves in the public spotlight.

A worker’s role includes the tasks of assessment and intervention; these always involve evaluating and managing risk. How processes of evaluating and managing risk are conceptualized, organized, regulated, and delivered differs widely across different practice settings. Practice contexts influence definitions of risk, harm, and abuse, and these contexts are influenced by differing national, legal, organizational, political, theoretical, and personal factors. These contextual differences and multiple influences on how risk is understood highlight the socially malleable construction of risk concepts that human service workers must navigate in their work with children and families.

In this chapter we discuss how to develop a critical approach to thinking about risk, in order to develop responses to families that are congruent with social work’s espoused moral commitments. Child abuse is often referred to as a “wicked problem” because it is such a complex issue, is constantly changing, and has multiple definitions, types, causes, and effects (Rittel and Webber 1973). A critical approach to human service work draws on

Page 81: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

68 ● Emily Keddell and tony Stanley

sociological insights into power and the social construction of knowledge; human service work extends these theoretical concepts in order to respond pragmatically to struggling families.

While “risk” can be understood most simply as an estimate of likely future harm, how the label of “risky” is attached to certain factors, behaviors, or events is often influenced by a process of social interpretation with signifi-cant consequences in the child welfare social work arena (Solomon 2002). Having a label of “risky” or “at risk” can justify considerable intrusive statutory intervention or can establish that a child or family meets criteria for access to scarce resources. It is therefore important to understand how human service workers conceptualize risk and use the concept in practice, because this impacts both immediate responses and longer-term intervention aims.

Multiple discourses converge in practice settings and significantly influence thinking about risk; these discourses include the overwhelmingly negative per-ception of risk, the use of risk factor science (evaluating risk based on statistical factors associated with abuse substantiation), the national orientations to child welfare, and the particular tools that are used for risk assessment (Beck 1992; Fargion 2014; Gillingham 2006). It is helpful then, for the human service worker to regularly pause and ask, “How do we know what we think we know? What influences the ways we define and explain risk, need, abuse, and safety?” As we evaluate these interpretive possibilities, a reflective practitioner must ask him or herself, “What ways of framing or constructing risk are most likely to meet social work’s espoused aim of delivering empowering practice? Is this possible, when the rights of children and adults may compete when working with families?” We begin this chapter with an exploration of risk and the tendency for risk to saturate practice. We show what can happen when a deficit approach dominates our work. We then explore the potential of strengths perspectives and safety-oriented practice to provide some answers to these questions. We draw on our practice experiences to illustrate the gains for families when we take a safety-focused approach to practice.

A Sociology of Risk

An approach to understanding risk can spring from an exploration of the sociological imagination. Having a sociological imagination means we can locate ourselves within our own particular social context and start to make some links between our daily life and the social influences that are shaping us. To illustrate this point, consider the relationships between an economic downturn, rising unemployment, and the way people feel when they are struggling to find work. Our lives are certainly influenced by what is going on around us. Sociologists know this as the sociological imagination (Mills 1959).

Page 82: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Moving from risk to Safety ● 69

Most human service workers probably think this way, whether or not they consciously connect it to this particular sociological theory. The sociological imagination reminds us that it is important to identify underlying political and other ideologies attached to risk concepts, as doing so enables human service workers to connect their own microlevel practice with the political context in which they are operating. In this way, the sociological imagination leads to an awareness of the dominant discourses governing practice settings. Featherstone, Broadhurst, and Holt (2012, 619) noted that “models of practice do not emerge or exist in a vacuum; they are intricately linked to political, economic and social projects . . . [and] . . . need to be understood within the wider social and economic rationalities of that project.” They went on to argue that many types of risk assessment reflect an increasingly neoliberal individualization of social problems, attributing risk to solely individual factors (such as a history of abuse) without recognizing the contributing influ-ences of social contexts or structural disadvantage. Despite their shortcomings, such approaches are attractive, because they seem to promise certainty and a “scientific” method to arrive at a correct solution, especially as the perception of risk is heightened when practitioners are working with children, who are themselves constructed as fragile, passive, and in need of rescuing. As shall be seen, the public spotlight in which human service workers work contributes to this search for surety.

Risk as Ubiquitous

When a tragedy occurs in practice, such as the death of a child known to social services, the public and political condemnation of social work tends to be swift and unforgiving. Alaszewski and Burgess (2007) argued that events such as this, and the public reactions that follow them, have led to the emergence of a precautionary and defensive approach to risk. This influences the available discourses used to construct risk in social dialogue of all kinds. Taking a pre-cautionary approach to risk management disregards the actual probabilities of particular events occurring and “casts the future principally in negative, poten-tially catastrophic terms” (Alaszewski and Burgess 2007, 349). Beck (1992) argued similarly in his “risk society” thesis that people have become more aware of risks and have simultaneously internalized the belief that they alone are responsible for risk management. This is part of the evolution of reflexive modernity, wherein people are more likely to recast themselves as autonomous agents. This leads to a paradoxical perception that risks are all-encompassing and yet able to be controlled by the individual (Beck 1992; Gillingham 2006). Human service practice is influenced by this thinking, as the implicit belief is that risk is pervasive yet controllable. Individuals, both clients and human

Page 83: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

70 ● Emily Keddell and tony Stanley

service practitioners, are regarded as responsible for managing risks and capable of doing so with some certainty. This ability to manage risks becomes regarded as a hallmark of a good citizen and a good practitioner; if one fails, the message is that the person lacks personal responsibility, has failed to uphold his or her side of the social contract between the state and the individual, and is therefore justifiably excluded or sanctioned (Rose 1999).

Risk Factors and Their Limits

The privileging of attempts to quantify, control, and predict risk can lead to highly technical, mathematical approaches to risk assessment, often based on statistics. The science of risk factors can provide useful overviews of the patterns of poor outcomes across populations, and it helpfully draws attention to the cumulative nature of adversities. Its usefulness has, however, been over-stated, possibly because it promises a “scientific” approach that is attractive to governments intent on implementing policy based on an economic rationality paradigm (Keddell 2015). A risk factor approach can be viewed as a method of more precisely identifying individuals requiring remedial or preventive intervention, thus heightening economic efficiency. However, identifying that an individual has a particular risk factor does nothing to indicate the size of that risk, nor does the risk factor inevitably lead to a negative outcome. Risk factor calculations are limited in their ability to predict outcomes, as they do not provide insight into how a variety of risk factors combine in a particular family’s life (Munro, Taylor, and Bradbury-Jones 2014). Under-standing the risk factors associated with poorer outcomes is a useful starting point, but that understanding cannot replace a current understanding of the family’s relationships, functioning, and context and the perspectives of both the children and the adults involved. Mathematical approaches, including actuarial approaches (the name for risk assessment tools based on statistical risk factors), must therefore be combined with case-responsive types of risk assessment, that is, those in which practitioners draw on their own understand-ing of the case, as well as the relationship they have with the client family, and their own practice wisdom, knowledge of theories, and understanding of research, in order to make a sound decision. These latter factors are often referred to as “professional discretion” or “consensus” approaches to risk assessment (Munro 2005; Shlonsky and Wagner 2005).

Understanding Risk in the Context of Policy Orientations

Policy orientation is another important factor affecting the understanding of risk and of the connections between the political context and human

Page 84: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Moving from risk to Safety ● 71

service practices (Križ and Skivenes 2013). A number of authors have sug-gested that there are broad differences in emphasis or “flavor” between the policy direction of different countries, reflecting either a child protection or a child welfare orientation (Connolly 2004; Fargion 2014; Gilbert, Parton, and Skivenes 2011). When a child welfare orientation is adopted, practitio-ners and policy makers consider the best interests of the child to be strongly related to the interests of the family as a whole, and these mutual interests are best supported by undertaking a comprehensive exploration of strengths and difficulties. A child welfare orientation draws on social or psychologi-cal theories to frame problems and uses more therapeutic or needs-oriented interventions (Fargion 2014; Gilbert, Parton, and Skivenes 2011). Its focus is to “create those material and social conditions within which all children are given sufficient opportunities to reach their full potential” (Fargion 2014, 2, also quoted in Keddell 2015, 71). Thus, the main purpose of a child welfare orientation is to develop a prevention policy framework based on a long-term understanding of causes and patterns of social problems rather than to reactively respond to risky events or risk factors (Keddell 2015; Spratt 2008). Thus, when considering risk and safety, a child welfare orientation does not prioritize risk identification but instead responds to need, viewing risks of harm as resulting from a lack of universally accessible services and social and psychological supports.

Gilbert, Parton, and Skivenes (2011) noted that a child protection ori-entation, by contrast, constructs family problems as moral and individual rather than social problems. The orientation has a tendency to result in a forensic investigatory approach on the part of workers, and often this leads to an adversarial relationship between agents of the state and parents. Too frequently, the process becomes judicialized and results in involun-tary out-of-home placement of children (see also Keddell 2015). Fargion (2014) further commented that child protection orientations appear to be grounded in a belief that abuse can be understood objectively and can be quantified via the use of standardized assessment tools. This leads to children’s best interests being narrowly defined in terms focused almost exclusively on their protection from abuse events. Fargion (2014, 2) noted that this approach leads to families’ problems and difficulties being seen as “signals of risks” and treated accordingly.

Which of these two orientations holds sway in any particular country will shape the construction of risk and inform the ways families are governed and regulated in that country. Many countries increasingly draw on a combina-tion of these two orientations, combined with an emerging new paradigm: a child focused orientation. This focuses on the child’s long-term overall development and well-being (Gilbert, Parton, and Skivenes 2011).

Page 85: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

72 ● Emily Keddell and tony Stanley

In general, a child protection orientation, infused with an overreliance on risk thinking and risk assessment tools, is likely to lead to a practice preoc-cupied with identifying and eradicating risk and with risk-averse decision making (Križ and Skivenes 2013). Developing a consensus on the preferred orientation in any nation state is difficult, as there are multiple stakeholder views. Achieving a broad national and governmental acceptance of a welfare orientation is far from straightforward.

Risk and Values

Lying unexamined beneath the public conversations about risk, risk factor assess-ments, and official national policy orientations, there are many other factors that influence how risk is understood and applied to real-life decision-making processes (Buckley 2003). These influences include societal norms, value judgments, culturally specific beliefs about parenting, emotional responses, orga-nizational audit cultures, and dominant theories of human behavior. These many sources of discourse provide messy and often conflicting messages for human service workers, and many are related to implicit and unstated value positions. If interpreting a social situation is not just about finding out the “truth” but also about deciding how to interpret and construct that truth, we are dealing not with an objective judgment but one shaped by values. Dean (1999, 31) argued that risk is “never value-free, but rather is always the product of a way of seeing. A risk, therefore, is not a static, objective phenom-enon, but is constantly constructed and negotiated as part of the network of social interaction and the formation of meaning.” When social scientists consider which discourses to employ in public sociology, or in practice in the human services, the ethical aim is to select those discourses that support their moral commitments to social justice, human rights, and self-determination. When working in the field of child welfare, the scope of moral commitments incorporates concern for the well-being of both children and adults.

Risk in Practice: Impacts on Relationships and Children

One outcome of risk thinking can be intense anxiety for human service workers, particularly if they see their role as needing to control and resolve “riskiness.” A focus on control can undermine the practice imperative of col-laborating with clients—in this case, parents—as parents are too easily seen as untrustworthy and as primarily a source of risk. This focus on parental deficits positions parents as unequal partners in the worker-client relationship, which does serious damage to that relationship. In addition, the worker’s fear of being blamed if something goes wrong leads to risk-averse decision making,

Page 86: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Moving from risk to Safety ● 73

with the most significant being deciding to remove children from their family and home. There are always some children for whom this is necessary, but an intense focus on risk avoidance can lead to the structuring of child protec-tion organizations around the prevention of high-cost but low-probability poor outcomes (especially child deaths) rather than focusing child protection organizations on developing systems to support the well-being of all children or provide for family needs (France, Freiburg, and Homel 2010; Howe 2010; Macdonald and Macdonald 2010). This thinking can also lead to children themselves being constructed as hyper-individuals, entirely separate from their families, their schools, their communities, and their everyday lives (Featherstone, White, and Morris 2014). Their needs and interests become viewed as separate from, or even diametrically opposed to, those of their parents, who are too easily demonized. This view overlooks the contextual nature of child development and regards children’s relationships as unimportant or as uniformly negative.

A critical response is needed if human service work is to respond meaning-fully to the catastrophizing impulses of the risk society. In the child welfare arena, beliefs about risk are affected by intense media scrutiny, a sense that risks are pervasive and catastrophic, a faith in risk factor science, and the nation’s policy orientation in relation to abused children. A convergence of these concepts can contribute to risk-averse practice that discourages power sharing with clients and constructs children as hyper-individuals. Practice based on these drivers is seldom able to move beyond labeling clients as risky, toward actually working for ethical change together with the family. A key question for this chapter now emerges: what ways of thinking about risk are more likely to lead toward a more humane family-based practice?

Social Work Theories: Strengths and Safety Perspectives

How can sociologists learn from the efforts of social workers to resist the tendency to view risk in ways potentially at odds with the humanistic, empowerment, and social justice aims of their profession? How can the positive aspects of families and the actual needs and experiences of children and their families be included in practice approaches? Human service work-ers in many countries are aware of the negative effects that risk thinking can have on practice and of the tendency of such thinking to overlook structural risks and client capacities and resources. As a result, numerous methods have been developed to enable a more humane response to risk (see Stanford 2011). The two methods covered here—the strengths per-spective and the signs of safety approach—relate primarily to microlevel practice. These methods, derived from social work, might hold significant

Page 87: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

74 ● Emily Keddell and tony Stanley

potential for practitioners from other disciplines when they are working with families.

The Strengths Perspective

While traditional models of assessments have tended to focus on deficit and problem identification, the strengths perspective instead focuses on clients’ strengths and abilities. It emerged in the 1980s as a formulized set of practice principles, in response to the pathology-laden treatments available for people living with mental illness (Weick 1999). According to social work theorist Saleebey (2010, 1), operating from a strengths-based perspective means that “everything you do as a helper will be based on facilitating the discovery and embellishment, exploration, and use of clients’ strengths and resources in the service of helping them achieve their dreams and goals.” Not prescriptive in the skills to be used, this perspective can assist practitioners from other social sciences in opening up their thinking to accommodate a wider view when they are thinking critically about clients and their situations. This is a frame-work in which practitioners are invited to see a client’s situation as more than a set of problems. The framework is based on a profound belief by human service workers that people can and want to have different lives.

Social work has always considered strengths and positive aspects of clients’ lives, particularly within the humanistic ideals on which social work is founded. A focus on problem-solving has also been persistent. Other writers have noted, however, that a focus on solving problems, drawing on an individual’s own capacities, is liable to co-option by a neoliberal agenda, one that downplays the structural aspects of a client’s often complex issues (Gray 2011). As discussed earlier, it is too easy for the dominant risk dis-courses to operate as the sole definer of a client’s personhood and potential. A strengths-based perspective provides one framework by which sociologists and other social scientists can attempt to resist the overwhelmingly negative consequences of risk focused thinking when working with families. It can result in practitioners sharing power more directly with families, working together with them to assess challenges to family functioning and to identify resources available to overcome those challenges. This approach constructs a fairer picture of a family’s potential for adaptive growth and has the capacity to lead to actual change and engagement.

The Signs of Safety Approach

While strengths perspectives help workers to resist risk thinking in social work in general, one way that the perspective has developed specifically in the

Page 88: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Moving from risk to Safety ● 75

child welfare context has been in the signs of safety approach (Turnell and Edwards 1999). This approach is an example of a different way of working with risk and safety ideas, a way that may contribute to a more humane child protection practice. Turnell and Edwards (1999) developed the signs of safety approach in a collaborative endeavor with 150 frontline social work-ers in Western Australia in the 1990s. This collaboration arose out of shared concern that traditional risk assessment tools imposed definitions on parents and children that constructed them as risky and problem-laden. These tools provided little guidance on how risks could be prevented or lowered and how safety could be increased. There was scant attention within these mod-els to how parents and children could be engaged in collaborative partner-ships with workers. The signs of safety approach has been implemented across numerous jurisdictions in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Japan (Department for Child Protection 2011). Proponents argue that when practitioners are encouraged to focus too narrowly on assessing risk, this leads to risk-averse approaches in which families are related to with a view to controlling them rather than collaborating with them. This leaves little room for workers and families to work together to overcome difficulties and to recognize opportunities to overcome challenges to family well-being (Parton 2000; Turnell 2004). Practice that focuses on the assessment of tra-ditional expert-defined risks and factors that are statistically associated with risk (including physical and mental health issues, past or present experiences of violence, drug and alcohol abuse, or poverty) needs balance, if workers are to avoid the trap of deficit-focused practice, where the “darkest valleys and gloomiest hollows of family life” are the primary focus (Keddell 2014; Turnell and Edwards 1999, 101).

The signs of safety approach is an approach that combines attention to risk management, building safety, and creating collaborative relationships. It is premised on the question, “How can child protection professionals actually build partnerships with parents where there is suspected or substantiated child abuse or neglect?” (Turnell and Edwards 1999, 2, also quoted in Keddell 2014, 71). The approach is grounded in humanistic and strengths-based philosophies that promote the importance of listening to clients’ perspectives on their own lives and respecting clients as “people worth doing business with” (Turnell and Edwards 1999, 42, also quoted in Keddell 2014, 71). Rather than psychoanalyzing personal troubles as if they are intrinsic to indi-viduals, the signs of safety approach adopts a social constructionist perspective that contends that language constructs reality rather than that reality is able to be objectively ascertained. From a constructionist perspective, it is essential to invite and involve clients in narrating and making meaning of their social

Page 89: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

76 ● Emily Keddell and tony Stanley

experiences. In doing so, clients are enabled to reconsider their current circumstances and give voice to new visions for new pathways; this can engage them in committing to and co-constructing behavioral change (Berg and Kelly 2000; de Shazer 1991).

The signs of safety assessment process does not ignore difficulties and problems faced by families, but rather than constructing these as risks, the difficulties are approached as concerns and worries for the future. Workers and families together consider these concerns and worries alongside aspects that could be drawn on to build safety, such as a family’s opportunities, resources, and strengths. Included among such strengths are safety behaviors that may have been engaged in previously or that may be in evidence now and that support the safety and well-being of children. In keeping with its solution-focused and strengths-based orientation, the signs of safety approach encour-ages workers to help clients identify exceptions to harmful behavior, that is, times when abusive behavior could have happened but did not. The human service worker explores what was different during the nonabusive periods; this opens up a resource to be worked with. The approach also, however, states the “bottom-line concerns” of the social worker and the social work agency, that is, those concerns that must be addressed in order for the case to be closed (Keddell 2014, 72).

Signs of Safety in Practice

The signs of safety approach to child welfare is premised on working with families in a respectful, open, and honest way. It helps the worker to be clear with the family about what is concerning and what needs to change. There are three underlying principles to this approach. The first is that the human service worker engages with the family in a way that helps the family to be clear about why the work is necessary. This leads to the second principle—that the family locates their own resources that could help to resolve the prob-lem at hand. Third, the family and the worker together develop a safety plan that clearly spells out to everyone involved what needs to happen so that child safety is achieved. This is a significant shift away from monitoring families and referring them to other services, toward instead a collaborative approach whereby the family members are clear about what needs to change, when, and why. The family is positioned as central to bringing about enough change to the children’s lives so that the worker can be assured that no further harm will come to them, thus collaboration and investment by the family is more likely (Keddell 2014). A meaningful care plan is developed with the family, and a signs of safety mapping and scaling tool is used regularly to show the direction of change—either getting better or getting worse. Practice informed

Page 90: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Moving from risk to Safety ● 77

decisions then follow—these are cognizant of what the family is able and willing to do. The emphasis is on finding out what will effect and sustain change for the children and developing an assessment of risk grounded in the current family situation. It is not enough to enlist a range of services or programs that a parental client must complete; both children and parents require a meaningful relationship and a plan for their everyday lives that provides the best chance of change to the family relationship patterns and range of supports.

Case Study: Working toward a Child and Family Balance

In this section, we, the authors, draw on our practice experience to present a case study that would be commonly encountered by workers in child wel-fare agencies. (This is a composite case and does not relate to a particular worker or family.) Andrew works in an inner-city child welfare office; he has been assigned to work with a new case: a new, as yet unborn, baby is reported to be at risk in a family. Previous children had been removed from the family, the father is in a new relationship, and a new baby is on the way; these factors have prompted a referral of child abuse risk to the agency. Previous assessments held on file described the father as unable or unwill-ing to parent his children safely, and he was said to be resistant to change and hostile toward professionals. The file history referred to the father as “showing no signs of insight.” He was labeled “high risk” because of the previous case history and the records that other workers had completed. The label of “high risk” has now prompted some of Andrew’s colleagues and managers to say that the father should not have children in his care, even with a new partner.

Andrew uses a range of tools from the signs of safety approach to work respectfully and constructively alongside the couple. The tools provide a deep and quite rigorous risk analysis that shows that the situation for the baby is indeed risky but can be managed. Andrew defines the family’s situa-tion as a “safe uncertain” one. It is important that the expectant mother and father understand what Andrew means when he talks about safe uncertainty. Andrew explains to them that his job is not to resolve every risk for a child, as this is not realistic, and that the couple and their extended family have the most important role in managing and working with the risks that were iden-tified. He works with the family on a plan to manage risk while also building on the family’s own resources. Andrew uses some visual tools with the family, to map out danger, harm, safety, and resources—useful to help everyone see what needs to be worried about, what needs to be done, and by whom. This point is important: Andrew finds that family members are much more active

Page 91: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

78 ● Emily Keddell and tony Stanley

in protecting and improving the baby’s experience, once they are helped to see what worries him.

Instead of focusing only on identifying risks, an approach that might lead to resistance from the family (Turnell and Essex 2006), Andrew works around the risk to build a network of safe people who are on hand or close by and are willing to challenge any behaviors that might be harmful to the baby. This includes neighbors previously unknown to the agency. One neighbor agrees to play a part in the safety plan; the father introduces the neighbor to Andrew, and after a brief conversation about helping, the neighbor agrees to take part. (Neighbors can be helpful people when one is building safety networks; often, as in this case, they just need to be asked.) Taking a tradi-tional risk deficit approach would have steered the work away from the safety network approach and would not have encouraged the family to draw on their resources and support people. Andrew could have argued that the baby needed to be removed, because the marshaling of a risk argument that defines a situation as high risk is straightforward for workers and managers in cases like this. Instead, Andrew works productively with the uncertainty.

What is challenging and perhaps anxiety-provoking for sociologists and human service workers using this approach is working with the uncertainty rather than trying to eliminate it, to search for safe people, and to find some resources in the family life that can, over time, become safety features around the baby. Sometimes the focus needs to be on the smallest indications that things are improving. The uncertainty in this case was not dangerous—it was just unknown.

Working with the risk and the uncertainty through the signs of safety approach will not be comfortable for everyone. Powerful statements of parents being “too high risk” feature in meetings and are noted throughout case records. Workers can evaluate the situation using the signs of safety mapping and scaling tool; this will help the professional network, including the lawyers and managers involved with a case, to talk about how they are thinking about (that is, how they are constructing) the risks for children. In the case above, the signs of safety mapping and scaling tool showed that enough safety miti-gated the uncertainty that worried the professionals involved. A key message here is that being predefined as “high risk” can too easily and prematurely shut out those who can offer the greatest safety to children: their own family and the people in their immediate social and community network.

This brief case study is similar to ones commonly found in most child welfare agencies. Agencies and managers are nervous in these situations. The case helps to demonstrate that working with risk and safety as malleable ideas, as states that can alter when safety is located and built on, is a tenet of rigorous and respectful social work practice. If we think families are worth

Page 92: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Moving from risk to Safety ● 79

doing business with, and we start our work from a position that every family has something to bring to the work, we more effectively invite participation (Keddell 2014; Turnell and Edwards 1999). Families can tell us about what could help, however small an idea or suggestion. They can help us locate resources in the family system that can be marshaled into strengths and pro-tective factors for children. This attitude takes seriously the social work value of self-determination by allowing the family to have significant influence over their own lives. This can create safety for the child, as well as respect the rights of parents (Keddell 2014).

Some social workers will still prefer a more traditional deficit approach to risk practice, where the defining of risk remains a professional task; per-haps this feels safer for them (Stanley 2013). Myths about strengths and safety approaches as naive and Pollyannaish continue to be fueled by catastrophizing presentations of risk, aided by discourses of scandal politics (Ferguson 2004). It is important to note that neither approach means that all children can, or should, remain with their parents. Where there are no signs of safety, for example, risk is scaled very high by all involved, and when there is low moti-vation and confidence from parents, rapid removal can occur. However, these types of approaches ensure that families are assessed more fairly and realisti-cally regarding their ability to offer good enough parenting, and an oppor-tunity to engage in future change is proffered. Others argue that the signs of safety approach does not take adequate account of structural and material disadvantage affecting the lives of child protection clients (Keddell 2015); this criticism should be taken into account in each situation. Neverthe-less, strengths and safety approaches lead human service workers to actively include and respect the agency of clients in managing their own lives; this holds significant potential for responding to risk in ethical ways, particularly around the ethical imperative of “nonintervention”—that is, using the least intrusive interventions first. Acting unethically or misusing power easily hap-pens if practitioners cannot or will not practice reflectively, that is, will not stop to reflect on “what informs the way I think about risk and need, danger, safety, resiliency, and strengths?”

Pulling the Threads Together

Of course, the risks to children cannot always be mitigated by a safety or strengths approach. There is no magic bullet. As we are writing this chapter, England is reeling from two child abuse scandals. Little Daniel Pelka’s death was shocking. He was four years old and was beaten and starved to death. Two-year-old Keanu Williams was also found starved and neglected. Both suffered horrendously at the hands of people who should have loved and

Page 93: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

80 ● Emily Keddell and tony Stanley

cared for them. What followed was harsh and unforgiving media criticism of the human service workers, and we expect as a result a renewed emphasis on avoiding risk, following rules, and filling out forms. Paradoxically, the strong compliance messages focused on form filling detract from innovative work with risk because compliance requires that the time spent with families be dominated by gathering the information necessary to inform the paperwork. This overly bureaucratic approach tends to be combined with the practice habits of human service workers staying narrowly focused on the perceived “safest” option for children, such as removing children from their families (Stanley 2013). Narrow understandings of risk continue to influence human service practice, despite the fact that neither form filling nor risk avoidance successfully safeguards children’s well-being, and so the cycle of deskilling and fragmenting families is perpetuated. Shifting practice to strengths and safety-oriented approaches is difficult, of course, given these influences. It can be likened to trying to turn an oil tanker in strong waters: challenging, but not impossible. We believe that a move to strengths and safety-oriented practice may perhaps be slow, but it is a worthy direction.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we have shown that dominant discourses of risk can lead to overly deterministic assessments of family functioning and narrow approaches to keeping children safe from harm. We can offer more humane child protective services to children and families when we recognize the role that families and the wider community can play in effecting changes that ensure children are safer. In order to be braver in practice, and work with risk, human service workers need to understand how risk operates. Practitioners from all disciplines require a critical approach to understand how they make sense of risk discourses—that is, how they understand the sets of meaning that operate beneath language. Fook (2002, 115) explained why: “The ways in which we assess problems, and the ways we describe and define them are of course integrally connected with the ways in which we construct knowledge of our world and [this is] bound up with how we conceptualise and assess the ‘problems’ with which we work.”

Risk discourses are affected by risk thinking and by the policy orientation of countries. The use of strengths perspectives and safety-oriented approaches, such as the signs of safety approach, can offer a significant way forward for practitioners. We agree with Featherstone, White, and Morris (2014) when they argued that a more humane practice will only emerge when we resist the tendency to swiftly remove “at-risk” children from their families and communities. This shift in thinking will not be comfortable for everyone;

Page 94: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Moving from risk to Safety ● 81

some managers and policy advocates and even some workers will favor simple answers to the wicked problem of child abuse and neglect (Rittel and Webber 1973). We have shown in this chapter, however, how the inclusion of strengths and safety as conceptual drivers helps support a value base that means families and children are respected and fully involved, working along-side human service practitioners to achieve well-being.

Reflective Questions

1. How has this chapter extended your understanding of the concepts of risk and safety in work with children and families?

2. What range of strategies or practices might you employ to help you work in a strengths-oriented manner with children and families?

3. Apply the signs of safety approach, as outlined in this chapter, to the case of Aleena and her family from chapter 2. Can you identify any new insights that emerge from taking this approach?

References

Alaszewski, Andy, and Adam Burgess. 2007. “Risk, Time and Reason.” Health, Risk and Society 9 (4): 349–358. doi:10.1080/13698570701612295.

Beck, Ulrich. 1992. World Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Berg, Insoo Kim, and Sarah Kelly. 2000. Building Solutions in Child Protective Services.

London: W. W. Norton.Buckley, Helen. 2003. Child Protection Practice: Beyond the Rhetoric. London: Jessica

Kingsley Publishers.Connolly, Marie. 2004. Child and Family Welfare: Statutory Responses to Children at

Risk. Christchurch: Te Awatea Press.De Shazer, Steve. 1991. Putting Difference to Work. New York: W. W. Norton.Dean, Mitchell. 1999. “Risk, Calculable and Incalculable.” In Risk and Sociocultural

Theory: New Directions and Perspectives, edited by Deborah Lupton, 131–159. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Department for Child Protection. 2011. The Signs of Safety Child Protection Framework. 2nd ed. Perth: Department for Child Protection, Government of Western Australia. https://www.dcp.wa.gov.au/Resources/Documents/Policies% 20and% 20Frame-works/SignsOfSafetyFramework2011.pdf.

Fargion, Silvia. 2014. “Synergies and Tensions in Child Protection and Parent Support: Policy Lines and Practitioners’ Cultures.” Child and Family Social Work 19 (1): 24–33. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2012.00877.x.

Featherstone, Brid, Karen Broadhurst, and Kim Holt. 2012. “Thinking Systemically—Thinking Politically: Building Strong Partnerships with Children and Families in the Context of Rising Inequality.” British Journal of Social Work 42 (4): 618–633. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcr080.

Page 95: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

82 ● Emily Keddell and tony Stanley

Featherstone, Brid, Sue White, and Kate Morris. 2014. Re-imagining Child Protection: Towards Humane Social Work with Families. Bristol: Policy Press.

Ferguson, Harry. 2004. Protecting Children in Time: Child Abuse, Child Protection and the Consequences of Modernity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fook, Jan. 2002. Social Work: Critical Theory and Practice. London: Sage.France, Alan, Kate Freiburg, and Ross Homel. 2010. “Beyond Risk Factors: Towards

a Holistic Prevention Paradigm.” British Journal of Social Work 40 (4): 1192–1210. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcq010.

Gilbert, Neil, Nigel Parton, and Marit Skivenes. 2011. Child Protection Systems: Inter-national Trends and Orientations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gillingham, Philipp. 2006. “Risk Assessment in Child Protection: Problem Rather Than Solution?” Australian Social Work 59 (1): 86–98. doi:10.1080/03124070 500449804.

Gray, Mel. 2011. “Back to Basics: A Critique of the Strengths Perspective in Social Work.” Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services 92 (1): 5–11. doi:10.1606/1044-3894.4054.

Howe, David. 2010. “The Safety of Children and the Parent-Worker Relationship in Cases of Child Abuse and Neglect.” Child Abuse Review 19 (5): 330–341. doi:10.1002/car.1136.

Keddell, Emily. 2014. “Theorising the Signs of Safety Approach to Child Protection Social Work: Positioning, Codes and Power.” Children and Youth Services Review 47: 70–77. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.03.011.

———. 2015. “The Ethics of Predictive Risk Modelling in the Aotearoa/New Zea-land Child Welfare Context: Child Abuse Prevention or Neo-liberal Tool?” Criti-cal Social Policy 35 (1): 69–88. doi:10.1177/0261018314543224.

Križ, Katrin, and Marit Skivenes. 2013. “Systemic Differences in Views on Risk: A Comparative Case Vignette Study of Risk Assessment in England, Norway and the United States (California).” Children and Youth Services Review 35 (11): 1862–1870. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.09.001.

Macdonald, Geraldine, and Kenneth Macdonald. 2010. “Safeguarding: A Case for Intelligent Risk Management.” British Journal of Social Work 40 (4): 1174–1191. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcq041.

Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.

Munro, Eileen. 2005. “Improving Practice: Child Protection as a Systems Problem.” Children and Youth Services Review 27 (4): 375–391. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth. 2004.11.006.

Munro, Eileen, Julie S. Taylor, and Caroline Bradbury-Jones. 2014. “Understand-ing the Causal Pathways to Child Maltreatment: Implications for Health and Social Care Policy and Practice.” Child Abuse Review 23 (1): 61–74. doi:10.1002/car.2266.

Parton, Nigel. 2000. “Some Thoughts on the Relationship between Theory and Practice in and for Social Work.” British Journal of Social Work 30 (4): 449–463. doi:10.1093/bjsw/30.4.449.

Page 96: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Moving from risk to Safety ● 83

Rittel, Horst W. J., and Melvin M. Webber. 1973. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy Sciences 4 (2): 155–169. doi:10.1007/bf01405730.

Rose, Nikolas. 1999. Powers of Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Saleebey, Dennis. 2010. The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice. Kansas City:

Strengths Institute, University of Kansas, School of Social Welfare.Shlonsky, Aron, and Dennis Wagner. 2005. “The Next Step: Integrating Actuarial Risk

Assessment and Clinical Judgment into an Evidence-Based Practice Framework in CPS Case Management.” Children and Youth Services Review 27 (4): 409–427. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.11.007.

Solomon, Brenda. 2002. “A Social Constructionist Approach to Theorizing Child Welfare: Considering Attachment Theory and Ways to Reconstruct Practice.” Jour-nal of Teaching in Social Work 22 (1/2): 131–149. doi:10.1300/J067v22n01_09.

Spratt, Trevor. 2008. “Possible Futures for Social Work with Children and Families in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.” Child Care in Practice 14 (4): 413–427. doi:10.1080/13575270802267887.

Stanford, Sonya. 2011. “Constructing Moral Responses to Risk: A Framework for Hopeful Social Work Practice.” British Journal of Social Work 41 (8): 1514–1531. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcr030.

Stanley, Tony. 2013. “‘Our Tariff Will Rise’: Risk, Probabilities and Child Protection.” Health, Risk and Society 15 (1): 67–83. doi:10.1080/13698575.2012.753416.

Turnell, Andrew. 2004. “Relationship-Grounded, Safety-Organised Child Protection Practice: Dreamtime or Real-Time Option for Child Welfare?” Protecting Children 19 (2): 14–25. http://www.americanhumane.org/children/professional-resources/protecting-children-journal/.

Turnell, Andrew, and Steve Edwards. 1999. Signs of Safety: A Solution and Safety Oriented Approach to Child Protection Casework. London: W. W. Norton.

Turnell, Andrew, and Susanne Essex. 2006. Working with “Denied” Child Abuse: The Resolutions Approach. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Weick, Anne. 1999. “Guilty Knowledge.” Families in Society 80 (4): 327–332. doi:10.1606/1044-3894.1212.

Page 97: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

This page intentionally left blank

Page 98: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

CHAPtEr 5

Working with Groups: Group Work with Young Pacific Islands People

Patrick Vakaoti

Introduction

If they are fortunate, sociologists may be introduced to theories of commu-nities, organizations, and groups during the course of their training. They may also be fortunate enough to learn about group dynamics and about how to work sensitively with youth, families, or different ethnic groups. These topics are not, however, standard curricular material for sociology students because of sociology’s emphasis on developing students’ sociological think-ing and consciousness (Mesny 1998). Sociology’s practical contributions to addressing social problems and promoting social change are often neglected, albeit not deliberately. Students often leave universities underprepared for the reality of addressing social issues, including working with groups and communities.

The gap between a university based sociology education and the world of work is widely acknowledged and has resulted in growing support for applied or public sociology (Bach and Weinzimmer 2011; Finkelstein 2009, 2010). This support, however, has mostly focused on justifying the need for applied sociology and not on what to do and how to do it, with Tolich’s (2012) work on experiential learning being a notable exception (see also chapter 9). Spalter-Roth et al. (2010, 327) suggested that sociology courses should involve students in “activities that emphasize the relationship between sociological knowledge, marketable skills and future careers,” and they recommended this as “an important future direction for sociology departments, even as early as the introductory course.” Here lies an opportunity for sociology and its relationship to related disciplines—such as social work and community

Page 99: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

86 ● Patrick Vakaoti

development—that already emphasize the connections between knowledge and its application. These disciplines offer practical orientations to addressing social issues. Although tensions between these disciplines and sociology are acknowledged (see also chapter 1), the focus on enriching students’ prepared-ness offers sociology educators an opportunity to identify areas of natural convergence that would enhance student learning and contribute to what all these disciplines generally strive for: the creation of a just and equitable society.

Given sociology students’ current lack of exposure to group work in the course of their education, this chapter discusses some of the important concepts and competencies required for working with groups. It has a particular focus on work in New Zealand with young people from a Pacific background—that is, having a Pacific Islands ethnicity—with the belief that the considerations for this work can be applied in work with other minority groups elsewhere. (There are large numbers of people of Pacific Islands ethnicity in New Zealand, around 7 percent of the population, owing to the islands’ relative geographic proximity to New Zealand and to historical, cultural, and administrative con-nections. Although peoples of this group are referred to internationally as Pacific Islands peoples, in New Zealand they are referred to as Pacific peoples. For the sake of simplicity, the latter terminology is adhered to in this chapter.)

Sociology graduates from New Zealand universities typically find employ-ment either in the public sector or in community development work, with few pursuing a career in the private sector. They are likely to find them-selves working with Pacific peoples—in some cases specifically with young people. Because of the cultural realities of their Pacific clients, human service workers often adopt approaches that have a community or group dimension. The focus is commonly on encouraging and promoting volunteerism among Pacific peoples—the use and involvement of the grassroots community’s volunteer labor—to support extended families, the church, and ethnic and island communities (Vakaoti 2013). It is rare, by contrast, for community and group work to be undertaken in order to challenge and address social disadvantages, or problematic behavioral and personal issues that may arise as a result of the social and economic marginalization of Pacific young people. Pacific young people may be dually marginalized when their identity forma-tion deviates not only from dominant New Zealand cultural expectations but also from traditional Pacific community expectations, values, and beliefs. Working effectively with Pacific peoples requires both generic competencies to work effectively with groups and an understanding of the unique group characteristics and particular issues impacting Pacific peoples. Development of these competencies and this knowledge will contribute to graduates’ skill sets and assist with their employability.

Page 100: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Working with Groups ● 87

This chapter presents an overview of approaches that graduates can draw on and use wherever they find themselves working with groups of young Pacific people or young people from other ethnic communities. The infor-mation is also generally applicable to work with other types of minority groups. The chapter begins with a discussion of the author’s experience as a young sociology graduate volunteering at a residential home in Fiji. This leads to the second section of the chapter, which supports the case for applied sociology. In an environment where sociology finds itself justifying its relevance and sociology students struggle to find meaningful employ-ment, it is worth considering the inclusion of the practical skills of working with communities and groups in the sociology curriculum. The third sec-tion offers a general overview of group work, its processes, and facilitation. The fourth section offers some considerations for group facilitators engaging in group work with young Pacific peoples, with the expectation that the considerations are applicable to group work with other minority groups, especially young minority groups.

From University to Work: An Illustrative Experience

The author of this chapter studied sociology at the undergraduate and graduate levels and then carried this background and influence into doctoral studies in social work. This might appear to be a seamless transition, but the reality was that the process involved considerable uncertainty and was carved through years of study, work, volunteer experience, and reflexivity. The deci-sion to pursue doctoral studies in social work was motivated by his desire to apply his sociological knowledge to real-life experiences and by his perception that he lacked the practical skills to accompany his theoretical knowledge. One of his relevant experiences during that time was a two-year period of volunteering at Chevalier Hostel, a home for underprivileged boys and young men in Suva, Fiji.

Chevalier Hostel at any one time permanently housed 15 to 20 boys and young men between the ages of 7 and 24 years. The residents were either in school, working odd jobs like shoe shining, or looking for work. Other individuals sporadically accessed the hostel for night shelter. The residents were a diverse group of individuals with different personal circumstances, needs, and aspirations. They came from different backgrounds and ended up at the hostel for various reasons. These included family circumstances such as death of a parent, divorce, parental separation, or desertion, and domestic issues such as alcoholism, poor housing, violence, or unemployment. Some residents were put under the care of the hostel by the juvenile court. As a

Page 101: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

88 ● Patrick Vakaoti

live-in volunteer, the author interacted with, supported, supervised, and mentored the residents.

Although he found his time volunteering at the hostel personally fulfilling, the author wondered whether he served the residents effectively. He often felt inadequate, lacking the practical skills to complement his theoretical knowl-edge of working with both individuals and groups. An introduction to group work and group work skills at university would have contributed to a much richer, more effective work experience. His situation was not unusual, and it is probable that previous volunteers at the hostel and others working in simi-lar environments had similar experiences. There was no practice manual, and volunteers operated by instinct or whim, guided by the hostel’s philosophy of providing its residents with the comfort of a home and supportive, caring staff volunteers. The author ended his two years at the hostel with the insight that his university qualifications had proven inadequate for his role and that he required basic competencies for working effectively with young individu-als and groups. Gaining these competencies was imperative, given his conviction that his future lay with either professional work with young people or in a community-oriented academic career. This experience was one of several that led him to further studies to enable him to gain these competencies.

Supporting the Case for Applied Sociology

While this experience illustrates the sociological influence of critical thinking and reflexivity, it also highlights how one’s effectiveness in a work role can be limited by a lack of education regarding how to act and respond appro-priately to the social situation at hand. C. Wright Mills’s (1959) concept of sociological imagination is still applicable, but the ability to make “sociologists [become] aware of the practical and moral significance of their work” needs to be translated into practice (Finkelstein 2009, 89). The author’s experience and observations in the hostel were neither new nor unique to that situation, but they serve to support Finkelstein’s (2009, 90) observation that “over the past generation, the field of applied sociology and teaching and learning sociological practice has struggled to develop in the discipline.”

This challenge has been recognized and addressed by sociologists them-selves, making a stronger case for the teaching of practical or applied sociology. Writing in the context of the United States, Finkelstein (2010, 97) proposed four reasons for teaching applied sociology: “1) It promotes more effective teaching and learning. 2) It is grounded in the roots of American sociology. 3) It helps produce change-based research; and 4) Students desire a sociology they can use to engage the world and to help improve it.” These reasons are not exhaustive, but they offer a starting point for consideration when teachers

Page 102: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Working with Groups ● 89

introduce students of sociology to the relationship between theoretical concepts and their real-life applicability.

The extent to which this relationship is taught in university sociology programs is sometimes ambiguous. As an example, only two universities in New Zealand offer any undergraduate courses in applied sociology: a first-year course in general applied sociology (University of Waikato) and a second-year course on small groups (Massey University). A notable recent development has been the introduction of a student internship in a research methods course for sociology students at the University of Otago (Tolich 2012). This course is discussed in detail in chapter 9, as an illustration of an innovative way to prepare students for meeting expectations of employment either in the government sector or in nongovernmental organizations. Any one course can, however, only make a small contribution to addressing the challenge of the “gigantic chasm between what they [students] had learned in class and what they actually experienced on the job” (Finkelstein 2009, 99).

The teaching of a practical approach to community mindedness, though rare in sociology courses, is commonplace in social work, human service, and community development courses. Here, the essence of student learning is developed around working with groups, organizations, and communities. As an example, in 2013, the author cotaught a fourth-year social work course titled “Communities and Organizations: Advanced Analysis and Practice.” Building on a third-year course that provided a theoretical introduction to communities and organizations, it gave students the opportunity to develop tools and skills for real-world practice in group, community, and organizational development. Students were expected to complete two group projects. The first required each group to identify and interview an individual change maker—that is, a person who works to make change in society—within a community or an organization. Each student then individually analyzed the steps the change maker took to achieve change and the impacts of those inter-ventions. In addition, they explained the tasks undertaken by their group in completing the interview project. The second project required the group of students to work with the community or organization of the first project’s change maker and develop a lobby or advocacy campaign to create public awareness of an issue identified by the community or organization. Students then individually analyzed the group project.

Students’ analyses of both projects demonstrated a high degree of experi-ential learning. The first project required them to develop an understanding of the nature of their own group’s stages and the dynamics of group work. Although group work can generally be quite unpopular with students, stu-dents in the course appreciated this aspect of the assessment, recognizing that working with colleagues is a workplace reality. The second project, in which

Page 103: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

90 ● Patrick Vakaoti

students applied learned concepts and skills in the development of a lobby or advocacy campaign, offered many students the first real opportunity to be immersed with people in a grassroots or stakeholder group, community, or organizational setting. They recorded many valuable learning experiences, including the need to be nonjudgmental and culturally sensitive, identifying and resolving group conflicts, and working with others as equal partners in a project. The students also indicated experiencing moments of personal growth and reflectivity. (As a word of caution, working in groups of col-leagues or with groups of stakeholders does not mean that one can work effectively as a group worker.)

Whereas working with communities, organizations, and groups is taken for granted in educational programs in the human services and social work, this is not normally the case in sociology programs. Unless their training institutions or programs offer opportunities for practicing applied aspects of sociology, the majority of sociology students will experience applied aspects of sociology firsthand only after graduation. This chapter concurs with the view espoused by Spalter-Roth et al. (2010) that the majority of students who undertake sociology majors at university do so because they want to understand the nature of society, the issues that plague it, and how these can be addressed. The fulfilment of this aspiration, particularly for students who prioritize the values of equality and nondiscrimination, can be best attained in the context of working with communities and groups, which, according to Finkelstein (2010, 100), constitute “the laboratory in sociology.” To work in these settings requires an understanding of group work and some basic competencies for working in groups in the various employment sectors, such as health, education, criminal justice, and sports.

Group Work

Defining Group Work

According to Healy (2012, 137), “groupwork [sic] is the practice of bringing together a group of people to achieve a shared purpose.” Depending on its purpose, group work may be influenced by particular theoretical perspectives and may be applied in a variety of settings, and group work may involve different kinds of groups of people. Payne (2005) identified three general perspectives useful in guiding group work: the remedial view, which focuses on altering social behavior; the reciprocal view, which sees the group worker and group members together designing and working toward a particular purpose; and the social goals view, popular in youth and community group work circles, in which the purpose is to “pursue external goals, such as education or community activities” (Payne 2005, 46).

Page 104: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Working with Groups ● 91

It is important to clarify that some work that occurs in groups is not actually group work. Hartford (1978) summed this up well:

Another myth is that if a worker collects an aggregate, that is, gets people together in the same place and responds to them individually in the presence of each other, something significant and helpful will occur. It may and it may not. It may be good and it may be harmful for individuals in a gathering to observe a therapist responding to one and then another in sequence, but it is not working with the group and it is not maximizing the full potential of having the group begin to work for itself. (Hartford 1978, 9, also quoted in Kurland 2007, 16)

This particular group process, otherwise known as “casework in a group” (Kurland 2007, 16), pathologizes individuals. While group work is an effective way of working with more than one individual over a given period, its essence lies in acknowledging the strengths embodied both in individual group mem-bers and in the group as a whole (Healy 2012). Group work recognizes group members’ ability to be empathetic, understanding, and mutually support-ive (Kurland 2007). Practiced competently, group work serves to “provide education, reduce isolation, build support, or promote social action around a common concern” (Healy 2012, 138).

Despite its potential for positive change, some individuals find group work challenging, and the approach may not be suitable for every client. Individual experiences and sensitivities are often the main challenges to people’s involvement in group work. According to Healy (2012, 140), group work may be unsuitable when “individuals are overwhelmed by their life circum-stances in ways that limit their capacity to engage in the learning and support needs of others . . . An individual has had negative previous group experiences . . . [Or when] significant confidentiality issues exist.” These challenges can be addressed through support of these individuals outside of group work settings (Healy 2012). If the individuals return to group work environments, their challenging experiences can be addressed through effective group work processes and facilitation.

Group Work Processes

Regardless of the purpose of any group, its structure and processes appear to be nearly universal. Tuckman and Jensen (1977) offered one of the most widely acknowledged descriptions of the stages of group development. They labeled these “forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning” (Tuckman and Jensen 1977, 426). The latter stage is more commonly known as termination. Garrett (2004) referred to three group phases: beginning, middle, and final phases. The five stages identified by Tuckman and Jensen

Page 105: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

92 ● Patrick Vakaoti

can be categorized under Garrett’s three phases, so that Garrett’s beginning phase comprises forming, the middle phase comprises storming, norming, and performing, and the final phase consists of adjourning or termination. In group work texts, the identification of different phases or stages in the evolution of groups is typically accompanied by suggested sequential prac-tice guidelines for group facilitators and group members (see, for example, Healy 2012).

Practice guidelines for working in groups are well documented. For example, the Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups, Inc. (2013) recently released a second edition of its standards for social work practice with groups. The standards suggest general core knowledge and skills for consideration at the different stages of group work. Healy (2012) described a preforming phase that precedes the actual formation of a group (Healy 2012; Kurland 1978). The preforming phase incorporates preparatory tasks, includ-ing consideration of the group’s purpose, goals, membership, processes, and logistical arrangements. According to Healy (2012), groups may form organi-cally from existing networks or connections; in these cases, group members are more likely to be familiar and involved with the group’s formation.

Following the preforming/pregroup planning stage, group members engage in the forming stage. With new groups, the group facilitator is expected to take a lead role in ensuring that the parameters and processes for the group’s functioning are established and understood. Facilitators must be alert to the reality that this stage can be challenging because of group members’ “tentative-ness, ambivalence, low commitment to the group and superficial discussion” (Garrett 2004, 77). During this critical stage, group members, with the guid-ance of the group facilitator, have the opportunity to agree on the group’s purpose, goals, and processes and to consider whether they are comfortable in the group. According to Healy (2012, 144–145), these agreements can be achieved through “the development of ground rules, the use of icebreakers and facilitating group involvement.” Similar tasks, in the form of “establishing a beginning contract . . . cultivating group cohesion . . . [and] shaping norms of participation,” are suggested by the Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups, Inc. (2013, 276–277).

Following the completion of the tasks of the beginning phase, the group embarks on the middle phase. The middle phase of a group’s development—incorporating the storming, norming, and performing stages—is initially characterized by conflicts, when group members establish roles and status (Garrett 2004), adjust to group relationships, and claim their dominance (Healy 2012). Conflicts, though uncomfortable, can be beneficial, leading to coherence as the group moves into the norming and performing stages. In these complementary stages, group members work toward meeting the goals

Page 106: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Working with Groups ● 93

and purpose of the group and ensuring that group processes are adhered to (Healy 2012).

The final group work stage is termination. This should be a gradual process, and group facilitators should ensure that group members are aware from the outset that groups will eventually cease. Termination is often reached when the purpose of the group is attained (Garrett 2004), but it can sometimes “be imposed on the group due to external events, such as the loss of funding for the programme in which the group is embedded” (Healy 2012, 147). A group’s ending, regardless of the reason, should be viewed as an opportunity for members to evaluate their learning and experiences and to consider how these can be transferred to other life settings and experiences (Garrett 2004). Members should also be offered the opportunity to evaluate the group’s pro-cesses, including its facilitation (Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups, Inc. 2013; Healy 2012).

Facilitating Group Work

This description of group work stages has the potential of giving the impression that group work is a straightforward, uncomplicated process. In reality, those new to group work may find the task of facilitating group sessions daunting. Becom-ing an effective group work facilitator requires students to confront significant personal and professional challenges. Naturally those students or workers who are comfortable with group work will gravitate toward it, whereas others who are less comfortable might avoid it. In some instances, however, they will have no choice but to work with groups. This is particularly true for those working in the human service sector. The author concurs with Kurland’s (2007, 14) belief that “group work can be taught and learned.” Kurland illustrated this by quot-ing a former student who wrote to her following graduation, “Thanks for your part in turning me from someone who started out terrified of groups to where I am now looking for potential for group work in any job description I read” (Kurland 2007, 14). This is the spirit in which it is suggested that sociology students should consider group work, with an open and inquiring mind.

Helpful literature is available to assist with the facilitation of group work and involvement of group participants; examples are Middleman and Wood (1990) and Northen and Kurland (2001). Garrett (2004) and Healy (2012) emphasized that any group activity must reflect the group’s purpose, goals, and developmental stage. Healy (2012) identified six useful activities that can serve as an introduction to group work facilitation:

● Icebreakers or getting-to-know-you exercises are useful at the beginning stages of the group, as a way of introducing and familiarizing members

Page 107: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

94 ● Patrick Vakaoti

with each other. Introductions must not delve into members’ personal details or expose confidential information. Group facilitators must ensure that icebreakers reflect the group’s purpose and are inclusive, so as not to discourage members from engaging with the group at the outset.

● Brainstorming is a common group activity, intended to encourage maximum participation from group members about an issue under discussion. Brainstorming is intended to be a free thinking exercise in which every answer is considered equally. It is important that ideas be recorded in some organized fashion as they are expressed. An open dis-cussion of ideas should follow, once the group feels that it has exhausted all possible contributions.

● Stimulus materials, namely visual and audio materials, such as photo-graphs, drawings, video, or sound recordings, may be used to generate discussion about a particular issue, particularly for group members who have difficulty contributing to a discussion in a timely manner. Although the group leader often provides the stimulus material and facilitates discussion around it, group members may also be asked to participate by bringing stimulus material that is related to the group’s purpose or the issue under discussion.

● Role play activity engages group members in acting out characters or roles within a particular context. Role play settings should reflect the group’s purpose and support skills development for individual mem-bers. Role plays are sometimes useful in alerting a group member who is in denial about certain issues. Role plays should be followed up with a debriefing. Group facilitators must be aware that some participants may be unwilling to engage in role plays; any activity should only be adopted with the consent of all group members.

● Continuums are used to help group participants to identify their positions about a certain issue. Continuums employ the use of either an imaginary or a drawn line (on a board or flip chart, for example), depicting opposing extreme positions about an issue. In using a continuum, group mem-bers are made aware of their positions in relation to those of their peers. Although awareness of the diversity is helpful, it may also highlight deep-seated and conflicting views held among group members. Given that these differences can lead to group conflict, continuums need to be used with skillful tact.

● Small group formation is another useful way of generating group discus-sion. Groups often have vocal and dominant members, as well as mem-bers who are less vocal and dominant. A skillful way of distributing this dominance is to divide members into pairs or other small groups to

Page 108: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Working with Groups ● 95

discuss the given issue. If the discussion is ongoing, the group facilitator may consider rotating members or asking members to pair up or join others with whom they have not had the chance to talk. Discussions from the small groups must be fed back in a constructive way to the larger group.

Group Work with Pacific Young People

The preceding section offered a snapshot of group work: its definition, processes, and facilitation. For students interested in group work, an insight into its application can be helpful. This section explores the example of group work with Pacific young people in New Zealand.

The numbers of Pacific people in New Zealand continue to rise, as a result of both natural increase and immigration. It is projected that by 2026 the Pacific population will comprise about 10 percent of the total New Zealand population. A significant characteristic of the Pacific population is its youth-fulness; according to the website of the New Zealand Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs, as of January 31, 2015, 38 percent (about 100,344) of the Pacific population is under the age of 15 years. The majority of these young people are New Zealand born, and their sense of Pacific identity is drawn from family, community, and specific island affiliations. Although many are socialized into maintaining this sense of identity and adherence to the values of their Pacific community, others resist this socialization. Socialization, acceptance, and repudiation take place in a context characterized by shifting identities, mediated through education, employment, popular culture, social media, and other technological innovations.

Regardless of the economic and social opportunities available in New Zealand, Pacific people continue to experience a marginalized position in relation to the dominant European-derived population. Despite education’s contribution to social mobility, Pacific people represent the “highest propor-tion of people with no [educational] qualifications” (Statistics New Zealand and Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs 2010, 8). Older and island-born Pacific people continue to hold primarily low-skilled occupations, with wide impli-cations for “children and young people’s access to education, families’ access to affordable housing, health services and decent standard of living” (Vakaoti 2013, 201). In addition, Pacific young people continue to be disproportion-ately exposed to other structural issues, such as family violence and racism. Sports, culture, the arts, and fashion appear to be the only activities that celebrate the achievements of Pacific young people (Vakaoti 2013). This trend is concerning, because celebrations of individual abilities do little to address the structural impediments to the development of Pacific people in general.

Page 109: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

96 ● Patrick Vakaoti

In recognition of the disadvantaged position of Pacific people in New Zealand, the government, through the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs and other stakeholders, has initiated pan-Pacific approaches to addressing educa-tion, health, and housing concerns. These approaches do not usually account specifically for the issues of young people. Where they do, young people are accommodated in relatively traditional “church and pastoral activities, health promotion, sports and entertainment” (Vakaoti 2013, 210). There is little evidence of efforts to ensure that Pacific young people are directly engaged in meaningful initiatives that aim to challenge and address their marginalization and contribute to social transformation. It is in this more radical context that group work should be considered; it can provide a setting in which the chal-lenging of oppression can be combined with an adherence to the values of reciprocity, respect, and relationships that are part of the Pacific culture and of the lives of its people.

Considerations for Group Work with Pacific Young People

Adopting an open mind is necessary for students of sociology who may find themselves participating in or facilitating group work. One must not adopt a place of innocence or an attitude of naivety or allow oneself to be prescrip-tively guided by a step-by-step manual of facilitating group work. Instead, the group facilitator must critically engage with some of the myths of group work and be especially aware of the myths relating to the specific group. This is pertinent when the facilitator is engaging in group work with young people from Pacific backgrounds, whose communally and culturally oriented heritage has the potential to either contribute to or hinder purposeful group work. Four myths regarding groups of Pacific young people are discussed here.

The first myth is that Pacific young people naturally thrive in group settings because of their strong communal and religious affiliations. This myth would assume that a generic approach could therefore be adopted when the facilita-tor is working with these young people. Whereas this may hold true for some purposes, it fails to acknowledge the diversity of young people and instead erroneously portrays them as a homogenous group. In the case of Cheva-lier Hostel described earlier, the residents’ underprivileged status masked the opportunities for group work that could have been initiated with them. In fact, there were possibilities for primary school and secondary school groups, a group for working residents, and a night shelter group. In New Zealand, Pacific young people generally exist in and traverse many group settings, such as choir, sports, and cultural performance groups. Although experiences from these settings may not directly transfer into group work behaviors, they can be harnessed to support group work processes and stages. For example,

Page 110: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Working with Groups ● 97

singing and performance abilities can be utilized as icebreakers during the group forming stages and the spirit of camaraderie that exists in these other groups can be drawn on to enhance a “positive group identity” (Healy 2012, 153).

The second myth assumes that the close bonds shared by Pacific people in their communal, cultural, and religious settings naturally translate into trusting relationships. In addition, the passive demeanor of Pacific young people can be interpreted as indicating trust, when in truth it can be a real indication of mistrust, particularly toward elders, authority figures, and out-siders. Group members’ trust of facilitators and of fellow group members is a critical element of group work and should not be taken for granted in group work settings. Gaining the trust of Pacific young people is vital during all stages of group work. Demystifying the perceived authoritative role of the facilita-tor is helpful in this, as is establishing clear ground rules and confidentiality boundaries for the group. Healy (2012) identified three additional practices group facilitators can use to promote trust within groups: modeling behav-ior such as effective listening and communication; supporting safe spaces; and managing conflict, ensuring that group members have confidence in the group’s coherence. Although Healy was not writing specifically about group work with Pacific young people, the practices she recommended are nonetheless useful.

The third myth is the assumption on the part of Pacific young people themselves that young people are to be seen and not heard. This stems from the fact that the homes, schools, and cultural communities that Pacific young people access are authoritarian in nature. As a result, young people can be controlled and dictated to in group situations. Any group work that replicates this dominant perspective is doomed for failure from the outset. Group facili-tators need to be aware that Pacific young people may believe that they are required to be compliant and silent at the beginning and middle stages of group work; facilitators will need to work to counteract this and ensure that the group processes promote group ownership (Healy 2012, 154). Many young people may not be accustomed to group experiences in which their status and contribution are considered to be as valid as that of other group members. In other group situations in which they are present, their participa-tion may be minimal or nonexistent. It is important that nonparticipation is not misinterpreted; there are also young people who prefer to see results and action in group activities, as opposed to engaging in a lot of verbal discussion without perceptible concrete results. The onus is therefore on the group facilita-tor to be aware of the multiple possible reasons for nonparticipation and to draw on appropriate group work facilitation skills to promote full involve-ment by all members—for example, by setting brainstorming activities such

Page 111: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

98 ● Patrick Vakaoti

as those discussed earlier in the chapter (Healy 2012). Group work can be a helpful modality for passive young people, because it can help them develop new skills and confidence and apply them to other areas of their life after the group termination stage (Healy 2012).

The fourth myth about group work with Pacific young people is that activities should be aimed at supporting or maintaining the status quo. For example, Pacific high school students in New Zealand are supported by programs aimed at lifting their educational achievement and increasing their involvement in tertiary education; these include the University of Otago’s Dare to Succeed academic mentoring program and the University of Auck-land’s Starpath Project, a research project on underachieving high school students. Although these projects are important, they do not address the host of other Pacific youth issues—such as unemployment, mental health, and environmental degradation—that deserve to be considered for alternative forms of group work that are more challenging of the status quo and that are more actively involving Pacific group members in the setting of agendas. Healy (2012) suggested some forms of group work for consideration, includ-ing group psychotherapy, behavior change groups, support groups, self-help groups, and social action groups.

Social action has roots in community development and community social organizing. It involves a collective response to perceived issues for the purpose of effecting “some form of change in the external environment” (Tesoriero 2010, 211). Social action can be carried out at different levels; internationally, an example is the Occupy movement, which has swept across many countries and regions since 2011, in response to growing social and economic inequality. A regional example is the Pacific Climate Warriors, who are active across 15 nations in the Pacific region, highlighting the impact of climate change on low-lying Pacific Island countries. A national-level example is the movement against growing child poverty in New Zealand; this involves a loose coali-tion including human service practitioners, policy analysts, and researchers. Social action can also take place at the local level, where it can perhaps be best promoted through group work. Such a group could comprise, for example, community members, community workers, and public sociologists working together to challenge a local council to address a shortage in affordable and culturally appropriate public housing with sufficient space to comfortably accommodate Pacific families. Social action groups offer the best option to challenging the status quo, because they have the potential to effect both personal and collective change. This is critical for Pacific young people, most of whom experience situations of marginalization and discrimination, either as a collective or as members of youth subgroups, such as women, sexual minorities, or people with disabilities.

Page 112: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Working with Groups ● 99

Irrespective of the type and purpose of groups, facilitators should adhere to the best practices of working in groups. Best practice not only requires good generic knowledge about group work and the tasks involved at various stages of a group’s development but also requires that facilitators have knowledge of and closely attend to the cultural perspectives, needs, and goals of people making up the group. A high degree of reflexivity is necessary to understand the nuances of the behavior and attitudes of Pacific people in groups, col-lectively and as diverse individuals, building on all members’ strengths and “promoting service user capacity for self-determination, equality and respect for difference” (Healy 2012, 140–141).

This chapter has highlighted the important considerations of group work, specifically in relation to groups comprising young Pacific people. While demographic information, such as Pacific background, provides pointers to likely important considerations, demographic information can only ever pro-vide guidance; the uniqueness of all group participants and their contexts must be borne in mind.

Conclusion

The purpose of this chapter has been to introduce group work. Generic concepts of group work stages and tasks need to be adapted to more spe-cific contexts—this was illustrated in a discussion of group work with Pacific young people in New Zealand. While the chapter has covered group work processes and facilitation skills and techniques, it has not discussed in any detail theoretical considerations or group work evaluation, both of which are adequately discussed in the available literature. The chapter presents group work as part of the broader consideration of supporting applied sociology at universities. Imbuing students with group work knowledge and skills helps them to make the connection between theoretical concepts and practice and, in doing so, better prepares them for the world of work.

The contribution of social work and community development, the two main disciplines that influence the nature of group work discussed in this chapter, in no way devalues students’ sociological knowledge. This sociologi-cal knowledge does, however, need to be supplemented by knowledge of how to apply practice theories. The very nature of today’s globalized world means that graduates who are knowledgeable and skilled in the application of theory to practice have the best chance of securing employment and effectively contributing to prosocial change.

Introducing group work to sociology students continues to be a somewhat bold initiative, because it moves away from pure theoretical teaching into a more public sociology (see also chapter 1). Such a move requires disciplinary

Page 113: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

100 ● Patrick Vakaoti

commitment as well as financial investment; there are budgetary, staffing, and curricular implications for sociology departments and programs. Stu-dent pathways into group work and community action that are currently left unspoken would require clearer articulation and acceptance. Universities that currently offer students an applied sociology pathway see the merits of expanding into these social justice and community practice oriented domains (Finkelstein 2010; Spalter-Roth et al. 2010). In a financially constrained environment where the survival of sociology as a discipline cannot be taken for granted, reaching out to related disciplines, especially social work and community work, may in the long term guarantee sociology’s sustainabil-ity as a discipline. Group work, in particular group work with marginalized populations, such as Pacific young people, has much to offer as an avenue for multidisciplinary collaboration.

Reflective Questions

1. Do you enjoy working in groups as a student or in the workplace? What do you experience as some of the advantages of working in groups? What challenges or drawbacks do you perceive?

2. Do the five stages of group formation identified by Tuckman and Jensen (1977) fit with your experiences of groups as a member or as a facilitator? Can you identify some of the tasks required in those stages?

3. Have you ever been in a group where you found yourself in a cultural minority in relation to, for example, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation? Do you think any of the recommendations in the chapter might help in such situations?

References

Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups, Inc. 2013. “Standards for Social Work Practice with Groups.” 2nd ed. Social Work with Groups 36 (2–3): 270–282. doi:10.1080/01609513.2012.759504.

Bach, Rebecca and Julianne Weinzimmer. 2011. “Exploring the Benefits of Commu-nity-Based Research in a Sociology of Sexualities Course.” Teaching Sociology 39 (1): 57–72. doi:10.1177/0092055X10390647.

Finkelstein, Marv. 2009. “Toward Teaching a Liberating Sociological Practicality: Challenges for Teaching, Learning and Practice.” Teaching Sociology 37 (1): 89–102. doi:10.1177/0092055X0903700108.

———. 2010. “Why Teach Applied Sociology? Four Reasons to Consider.” Journal of Applied Social Science 4 (1): 97–109. doi:10.1177/193672441000400108.

Garrett, Kendra. 2004. “Use of Groups in School Social Work: Group Work and Group Processes.” Social Work with Groups 27 (2–3): 75–92. doi:10.1300/J009v27n02_06.

Page 114: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Working with Groups ● 101

Hartford, Margaret. (1978). “Groups in the Human Services: Some Facts and Fan-cies.” Social Work with Groups 1 (1): 7–13. doi:10.1300/J009v01n01_02.

Healy, Karen. 2012. Social Work Methods and Skills: The Essential Foundations of Prac-tice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kurland, Roselle. 1978. “Planning: The Neglected Component of Group Develop-ment.” Social Work with Groups 1 (2): 173–178. doi:10.1300/J009v01n02_06.

———. 2007. “Debunking the ‘Blood Theory’ of Social Work with Groups: Group Workers Are Made and Not Born.” Social Work with Groups 30 (1): 11–24. doi:10.1300/J009v30n01_03.

Mesny, Anne. 1998. “Sociology for Whom? The Role of Sociology in Reflexive Modernity.” The Canadian Journal of Sociology 23 (2/3): 159–178. http://ejournals .library.ualberta.ca/index.php/CJS/.

Middleman, Ruth, and Gale Goldberg Wood. 1990. Skills for Direct Practice in Social Work. New York: Columbia University Press.

Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.

Northen, Helen, and Roselle Kurland. 2001. Social Work with Groups. 3rd ed. New York: Columbia University Press.

Payne, Malcolm. 2005. Modern Social Work Theory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Spalter-Roth, Roberta, Mary Scheuer Senter, Pamela Stone, and Michael Wood.

2010. “ASA’s Bachelor’s and Beyond Survey: Findings and Their Implica-tions for Students and Departments.” Teaching Sociology 38 (40): 314–329. doi:10.1177/0092055X10378827.

Statistics New Zealand, and Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs. 2010. Education and Pacific Peoples in New Zealand: Pacific Progress 2010. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand and the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs.

Tesoriero, Frank. 2010. Community Development: Community-Based Alternatives in an Age of Globalisation. Sydney: Pearson.

Tolich, Martin. 2012. “Sociology Graduates Require Pathways, Not Employment Destinations: The Promise of Experiential Learning.” New Zealand Sociology 27 (2): 148–158. https://sites.google.com/site/nzsociology/journal.

Tuckman, Bruce W., and Mary Ann C. Jensen. 1977. “Stages of Small Group Development Revisited.” Group Organization Management 2 (4): 419–427. doi:10.1177/105960117700200404.

Vakaoti, Patrick. 2013. “An Overview of Pacific Community Development in New Zealand.” In Community Development: Insights for Practice in Aotearoa New Zealand, edited by Jenny Aimers and Peter Walker, 198–213. Auckland: Dunmore Publishing.

Page 115: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

This page intentionally left blank

Page 116: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

CHAPtEr 6

Bicultural Practice: Beyond Mere tokenism

Anaru Eketone and Shayne Walker

Introduction

Bicultural work, in the context of the peoples of Aotearoa/New Zealand, is a complex and multifaceted subject, focused on relationships between indig-enous Māori and nonindigenous Pākehā (white New Zealanders), as well as relationships across different Māori groups. It brings together indigenous and nonindigenous knowledge and practices that enhance people’s well-being. It is crucially concerned with being culturally responsive and sensitive. This chapter draws on the example of New Zealand, where sociology students have often suffered from what Tolich (2002) called “Pakeha paralysis”—avoidance by Pākehā of Māori frameworks, worldviews, and practice models, and avoidance of Māori clients or research participants. This chapter will consider the definitions, origins, relationships, and practice of biculturalism that are relevant to social work and sociology.

Definitions and Origins of Biculturalism

Biculturalism is a contested term, as it has differing meanings depending on the country and context. In the United States, for example, it can have two meanings, first referring to bilingual education, in which students are taught in both English and Spanish, and second, as a description of how minority groups adapt to living in a dominant culture, thus becoming bicultural—that is, learning to exist and develop in two cultural worlds (Smokowski and Bacallao, 2007). In Canada, the term biculturalism was used during the 1960s to recognize the importance of the two dominant population groups,

Page 117: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

104 ● Anaru Eketone and Shayne Walker

namely, those of British and French origins. Usage of the term did not, how-ever, last long; it was replaced with the term multiculturalism, in recognition of the multicultural nature of Canadian society. From a New Zealand Māori perspective, it is interesting to note that this change was due not to a recogni-tion of Canada’s indigenous First Nations peoples but rather to the objections of Ukrainian Canadians, who felt that a bicultural Canada excluded them (Lalande 2006).

In New Zealand, the term biculturalism has a different meaning. Rather than being a description of the nation’s demographics or a single specific prac-tice, it encompasses the wide range of governmental, institutional, and social policies and practices. It has grown out of a recognition of New Zealand’s past. Through the latter part of the twentieth century, the New Zealand gov-ernment and growing numbers of New Zealanders increasingly recognized that government policy and government entities at all levels had been oper-ating from a Eurocentric worldview, whereby the values of Pākehā (specifi-cally, in this case, European settlers and their descendants) had become “the norm and the marked standard by which others were judged and criticised” (Fleras and Spoonley 1999, 236). The answer to this Eurocentric monocul-turalism and Pākehā dominance was an advocacy for a type of biculturalism that recognized “the coexistence of two distinct cultures, Māori and Pākehā, within New Zealand society with the values and traditions of both cultures reflected in society’s customs, laws, practices, and institutional arrangements, and with both cultures sharing control over resources and decision making” (O’Reilly and Wood 1991, 321, quoted in M. Durie 1998, 101). Bicultural-ism acknowledges that there are two fundamentally distinct cultures within New Zealand, an indigenous Māori culture and a New Zealand national cul-ture that is based primarily on the values, language, and customs of British settlers. There is, of course, an obvious tension that arises with the growing ethnic diversity of New Zealand that relates to how to incorporate consideration of the place of people who identify with neither Māori nor Pākehā cultures, and we shall discuss multiculturalism shortly.

In 1840, Māori leaders and representatives of the British Crown signed the Treaty of Waitangi, establishing a British Governor of New Zealand and ostensibly giving Māori the rights of British subjects. In 1852, the New Zealand Constitution Act handed the running of the country to the settler population, who exploited their dominance in political matters by marginal-izing the Māori political voice, ensuring that Māori had little, if any, influ-ence in the nation’s affairs. In 1867, four distinct Māori electoral seats were created, compared with the 70 available to Pākehā, despite the fact that in proportion to their population, Māori may have expected 15 to 25 represen-tatives. The marginalization of the Māori vote ensured that the institutions

Page 118: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Bicultural Practice: Beyond Mere tokenism ● 105

of the state would run by one cultural perspective, one value base, and one language. This consciously and subconsciously created a hierarchy whereby one culture (British) determined whose values and language were used in the development of policy, the implementation of law, and the distribution of services such as health, welfare, education, and justice. It also ensured the marginalization of the Treaty of Waitangi, allowing the settler government to ignore the guarantees inherently and specifically promised to Māori within the document. The settlers were in charge of the legislative and judicial pro-cesses and were not prepared to share any form of power.

This situation persisted for over 100 years. It was not until the mid-1970s that the nation finally started taking seriously its responsibilities under the Treaty of Waitangi. A crucial development came in 1975, when the Waitangi Tribunal was set up to investigate current violations of the treaty. (Initially, the tribunal was not permitted to investigate historical violations such as the historical misappropriation of land.) The road toward biculturalism emerged both from this new acknowledgment of the Treaty of Waitangi and as a result of the 1981 protests that challenged the three-month visit to New Zealand by a South African rugby team representing an apartheid regime. The protests, though divisive, were huge, bringing together a broad coalition of groups and individuals. Māori activists challenged those involved in the protests as to why they were prepared to object to racism in a foreign country but were ignoring the endemic racism faced by Māori within New Zealand (Walker 2004). Many Pākehā began to feel uncomfortable with the country’s dealing with its indigenous people (Graham 2001) and rallied behind the efforts for greater recognition of the treaty as a way to rethink how the nation was to progress into the future. A 1985 law change meant that the Waitangi Tri-bunal could now investigate past actions of the British Crown, and a long-standing desire to resolve the grievances of the past began to be addressed. Biculturalism became de facto government policy with the introduction of the State-Owned Enterprises Act in 1986, with its requirement for all gov-ernment departments to report on their responsiveness to Māori and to the Treaty of Waitangi (Fleras and Spoonley 1999). The implementation of the treaty in government policies and procedures was beginning to be seen as the “basic tenet” (Levine 2001, 163) of biculturalism.

A leading legal expert on the Waitangi Tribunal, elaborating on the concept of biculturalism, defined it by its objectives. These include, first, “to acknowledge and respect those things that are distinctly Maori owned and operated, like Maori language, custom and lands, Maori schools . . . and Maori governance institutions . . . [and second] to make state oper-ated facilities more culturally amenable to Maori as with the recogni-tion of Maori preferences and practices in schools, hospitals and prisons”

Page 119: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

106 ● Anaru Eketone and Shayne Walker

(E. Durie 2005, 4). Durie also saw settling Māori land grievances and ensuring the place of Māori in the nation’s institutions, such as the Māori parliamentary seats, as important. Finally, Durie saw biculturalism as a way of encouraging Pākehā people to engage with Māori language and culture, which could then contribute to the development of a truly com-mon national identity.

Another author (incidentally, the older brother of E. Durie) had a much simpler description of the heart of New Zealand biculturalism: Māori lan-guage, values, and practices should be reflected in “society’s laws, practices, and institutional arrangements” (M. Durie 1998, 101); he noted that this had been implemented in various ways in both government and nongov-ernmental organizations. M. Durie created a framework of bicultural goals and showed how different goals should be aligned with changes in organi-zational practices and governance structures. For example, a goal to develop cultural skills and knowledge in an institution could change the organiza-tion’s practices but leave the organization fundamentally unchanged in terms of its governance structure, whereas other goals might only be achievable through joint ventures with independent Māori institutions. In such joint ventures, Māori expectations around governance can significantly impact the governance structure of partner organizations (M. Durie 1998). Fleras and Spoonley (1999) developed M. Durie’s framework further, drawing on his ideas about a bicultural commitment that had a continuum of goals and structures. At one end of the continuum was the “soft” approach of celebrat-ing a degree of Māoritanga (Māori culture and ways of life); at the other end were Māori models of self-determination. These frameworks identified how various government agencies and nongovernmental organizations sought to implement a commitment to biculturalism, whether because of compulsion or of their own volition, to show their commitment to a future that included Māori and Māori culture.

Social Work and Biculturalism

Some sectors took this commitment to biculturalism very seriously and looked for ways of modifying their own organizational structures accordingly. The social work profession became one of the strongest allies for Māori, advo-cating for bicultural practice, especially through the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW). Social workers saw a bicultural approach as one that could significantly reduce the inherent inequalities of New Zealand society, including disadvantages to Māori.

The association set up separate Māori and non-Māori caucuses, so that Māori social workers could discuss their own issues without having to explain

Page 120: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Bicultural Practice: Beyond Mere tokenism ● 107

themselves to people who did not understand their culture. It also sought to impart to Māori social workers greater self-determination, so that issues could be discussed from two positions (Māori and non-Māori) of equal strength.

In 1993, the ANZASW set up a bicultural code of practice that aspired to acknowledge the Treaty of Waitangi and to empower both Māori social work clients and Māori social work practitioners. The code stated that Aote-aroa/New Zealand should be a bicultural society and “one in which Maori and Pakeha contribute equally to policy, decision-making and have equal access to resources at all levels of society” (NZASW 1993, 21). ANZASW committed itself to achieving biculturalism through the introduction of a competency assessment that assessed social workers’ adherence to the bicul-tural code of practice. The code also defined bicultural standards of ethical conduct, the right of Māori clients to have a Māori social worker, and the principle that social workers should advocate for policies and practices that are informed by the Treaty of Waitangi. The code also stated, “Monocultural control over power and resources needs to be relinquished so that Maori can achieve liberation” (NZASW 1993, 18). The 1993 bicultural code of practice was superseded by the 2008 ANZASW Code of Ethics, which endeavored to more closely align itself with international codes of practice. As a conse-quence of that internationalization, the code now has, on paper at least, a lesser commitment to bicultural practice. Nonetheless, the ANZASW com-petency standards and code of ethics, as well as the competency standards of the Social Workers Registration Board, do require social workers to demon-strate knowledge and skills necessary for working with Māori.

Multiculturalism, Biculturalism, and Monoculturalism

At this point, it is important to differentiate between biculturalism and the common understanding of multiculturalism. Many societies have a plurality of cultures and ethnicities living within their borders, and the term multicul-turalism is often used internationally to recognize these diverse populations in a society. People of these diverse groups may set up their own cultural institutions, such as places of worship and community centers, and may start businesses or restaurants that meet the cultural needs of their populations. Berry and Kalin (1995) described this version of multiculturalism as having three defining aspects: cultural diversity is valued within a society, all cultural groups are allowed to maintain their cultural expressions (but only in so far as they remain within the laws of the land), and all cultural groups are able to participate equitably within society.

To New Zealand Māori, this description of multiculturalism does not carry the same expectations as does our understanding of biculturalism. We

Page 121: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

108 ● Anaru Eketone and Shayne Walker

would argue that there are few societies that are genuinely multicultural—that is, where all participatory cultures have a degree of equality in their values being recognized, including within government institutions and poli-cies. Berry and Kalin’s (1995) definition suggests a dominant culture should “allow” nondominant cultural groups to be accommodated, but only insofar as they do not disrupt a country’s laws and customs. This leaves little room for the possibility that a country’s laws and customs may need to change. A more accurate term for these cosmopolitan societies would be multiethnic, rec-ognizing the diversity of ethnicities and cultural backgrounds living within a society. With this view, New Zealand could not claim to be multicultural because government institutions and policies only accommodate one, or at best two, cultural ways of being, knowing, valuing, and doing. Multicul-turalism, as described by Berry and Kalin (1995), is a lesser form of inter-cultural arrangement. In our view, many western societies define themselves as being multicultural in a self-serving, self-congratulatory way, to promote themselves as something that they are not. They may be tolerant of people of another culture but hesitant to apply the others’ values into their own struc-tures. Immigrants or minority ethnic groups may be welcome, but only as long as they do not expect others to endorse or be personally influenced by the minority values. Immigrants may participate equitably, as long as they adapt to western approaches and assimilate or integrate into the dominant culture’s way of doing things.

Another issue with the term multiculturalism is that it can be used as an excuse to ignore bicultural obligations. The statement that “we are a multicul-tural society, not a bicultural one” is usually used to uphold monoculturalism. In other words, “We can’t learn every culture, therefore we shouldn’t learn any.” In Berry and Kalin’s (1995) form of multiculturalism, new immigrants are expected to acculturate into the new society; there is an expectation that when immigrants come to a new country, they may hold onto their traditions, but they will have to adapt their ways to fit into institutions, policies, and laws of the land.

This power dynamic, whereby the privileged maintain their power, is what prevents genuine multiculturalism in many countries. To some extent, it still prevents genuine biculturalism from existing in New Zealand. Monocultur-alism was the norm in New Zealand social work until recent decades (and is still seen at times today); it was usually the culture of the social worker that determined how the client was to be worked with. To participate in the social work process, Māori clients had to adapt themselves; because the social worker only had their own cultural viewpoint from which to work, the cli-ent had to communicate in a way that the social worker could understand. The monoculturalism of New Zealand’s Department of Social Welfare (the

Page 122: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Bicultural Practice: Beyond Mere tokenism ● 109

government department providing child welfare services) was highlighted in a report entitled Puao-te-Ata-tu (daybreak) (Ministerial Advisory Committee 1986), which challenged both the structure of the department and the services it provided, including the skills and attitudes of its workers and the lack of cultural integration of Māori values and processes. Puao-te-Ata-tu has had a significant influence on human service work since 1986, but for Māori, the full intent of the report has rarely been achieved (Hollis 2006).

Working Biculturally

A distinction should be made between biculturalism and working bicul-turally. Biculturalism is first and foremost a policy of incorporating Māori language, processes, and cultural values into institutions and policies of government and other organizations. Its goal is to bring about social justice for Māori and to acknowledge their status as tangata whenua, the indigenous people of Aotearoa/New Zealand, through the Treaty of Waitangi. Working biculturally, on the other hand, takes place in the New Zealand context when someone who is not ethnically or culturally Māori works with a Māori indi-vidual, whānau (extended family), or community.

The starting point for a social or community worker is always with an understanding of themselves and their own position, what O’Connor, Wilson, and Setterlund (2003, 53) called “the skillful, disciplined use of the self.” Social workers need to know who they are, recognizing what they bring in terms of culture, class, gender, education, and more impor-tant, the layers of power and privilege. It can be difficult to accept these types of deconstructions, particularly if a person feels they are themselves from a disadvantaged group. In addition, people can believe that, because they understand their own layers of powerlessness or marginalization, they therefore have a full understanding of the Māori experience. However, only Māori can fully understand the experience of being significantly disadvantaged in most social indicators (Marriott and Sim 2014) and underrepresented in positions of power and influence, all the while living in the only land they can call home.

Tolich (2002) noted that university students struggle with biculturalism and in knowing how to include Māori in their research. He concluded that Pākehā students often avoid studying Māori issues because they are paralyzed by the fear of making mistakes. This paralysis and anxiety can be heightened in social work, when Pākehā are obliged to work with Māori clients, espe-cially in statutory organizations such as the child care and protection teams in the child welfare services. While researchers can decline or excuse themselves from undertaking research that addresses issues specifically relevant to Māori,

Page 123: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

110 ● Anaru Eketone and Shayne Walker

human service workers have to find ways of interacting with their Māori clients. A number of problems can occur: being afraid to engage, resorting to essentialism (reducing Māori practices or structures to stereotypes), or not recognizing the diversity that exists within Māori society.

True bicultural practice must go beyond mere tokenism. Clients deserve ser-vices that acknowledge their cultural meaning-making frameworks and contexts (Waldegrave 2012). The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity, also known as the Bennett scale (Bennett 1993), can be used by human service workers to identify and improve how they react to cultural differences. This approach requires an honest self-assessment of sensitivity to cultural differences. It is based on moving through a continuum of stages within two states: ethno-centric and ethnorelative. In the ethnocentric stages, a worker uses his or her own values, customs, and standards to judge the behavior and values of persons from a different cultural outlook. In ethnorelative stages, a person is comfort-able in a variety of cultural settings, and he or she has developed practice effec-tiveness by adjusting his or her assessments and behavior to suit the setting and context. Practitioners first establish, through honest self-reflection, where they are positioned on the continuum. They are encouraged to then move through defined states and orientations, so that, as their experiential knowledge and practice grows, their potential competence in intercultural relations increases.

It would appear that ethnocentrism is often the reason for poor attention to the development of cultural skills and knowledge. If workers want to “do” social justice and human rights with Māori, a good personal starting point is their own self-awareness. They must be prepared to talk about those things that are deep within or that may or may not be important to them as part of their own cultural framework. It is a difficult thing, requiring honesty and self-awareness, to admit that one is ethnocentric, to acknowledge that one denies or misunderstands cultural difference. Ethnocentric thinking on the part of human service workers will be obvious to those with whom we work. No matter how honorable our motives, our effectiveness in working with someone is often based on how they perceive us. When working with people of other cultural backgrounds, we need to understand the basic skill package required, what Walker (2012, 72) called “the skills to respect,” where even to engage with a family we need to know how to acknowledge them in a way that allows them to maintain a degree of dignity, all the while allowing our lens (our views of others) to be challenged.

To work biculturally with Māori and move beyond tokenism, we must have at least a basic competence in te reo (language), tikanga (customs), kawa (protocols), Māori values, and Māori history (see also chapter 2). The authors of this chapter, who are Māori social work educators and prac-titioners in New Zealand, would like to see some practices evidenced by

Page 124: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Bicultural Practice: Beyond Mere tokenism ● 111

all human service workers practicing with Māori. These include mihimihi (introduction of yourself ), waiata (appropriate cultural songs in appro-priate cultural circumstances), karakia (prayers for opening and closing meetings), and pōwhiri (ritual welcoming). At the same time, we are aware of not wanting to essentialize social work practice with Māori down to a few cultural artifacts. The factor that mitigates against essentialism is an analysis of power (Dominelli 2002), leading to relationships that are based on “power-with” people rather than “power-over” people (Bishop 2002, 43). Forms of cultural competence (in Māori language, customs, and pro-tocols) can easily become a form of “new racism” (Pon 2009, 60) that can be used to disempower Māori. Jackson (1994) used the example of a non-Māori prison officer who had learned the Māori language and was working with a Māori inmate with very little fluency in the language. The young man was inadvertently “shamed” by the prison officer, who should have used his power more wisely. His intentions were honorable, but the outcome did not reflect this.

Although competency is a contested topic, it is a concept that is at the core of social work in New Zealand. To be registered as a social worker, a person must prove a series of competencies. The first three competency standards for the Social Workers Registration Board and ANZASW relate to competency to work with Māori and people of other cultures. The capacity to do this well has a number of components, the first of which relates to the concept of power. In the past, Māori have experienced many human service and social workers with poor engagement skills, having little skill in even basic pro-nunciation, let alone being able to speak basic greetings. Māori were often merciful, and they judged people on their attitude and humility rather than their intercultural skills. This approach, however, colludes with the notion of “power-over,” because power generally rests with the person with the job title and education rather than with Māori whānau (extended families) or communi-ties. To ensure a greater sharing of “power-with” whānau (Bishop 2002, 43), we suggest that actual examination and assessment of the knowledge of Māori cultural values and the skills of mihimihi, karakia, and waiata for all human service workers should be as important as any other set of practice knowl-edge. It is also a matter of epistemological equality, showing equal respect for Māori theories of knowledge.

The aim is for human service workers to achieve ethnorelativism, which can also be described as showing cross-cultural literacy (having knowledge) and cross-cultural fluency (the ability to participate in that culture) (Hirsch 1987). This relies on a strong commitment from human service and social workers to regularly put themselves in uncomfortable cross-cultural situations. It requires a commitment to the notion of servanthood—that is, placing priority on

Page 125: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

112 ● Anaru Eketone and Shayne Walker

the needs of others over those of yourself—rather than an attempt to distill Māori culture down to a few essentialized elements. There are a number of international writers who advocate a position of “not knowers” or “humble experts” (Smith, Bakir, and Montilla 2006, 8; Santiago-Rivera, Arrendondo, and Gallardo-Cooper 2001, 172), wherein the worker approaches the client family with genuine respect, recognizing that the family are the experts on their own lives and that the worker has significant limitations in knowing their culture. This is a “power-with” people rather than “power-over” people approach (Bishop 2002, 43). If workers believe in the empowerment of oth-ers, they will develop the knowledge, values, and skills to make this happen. This approach ties in with the anti-oppressive and empowerment frameworks discussed in chapter 2.

Māori expect more from social workers in contemporary times than they did a decade ago, and expectations will continue to grow. Many whānau now have members who are themselves highly educated and politically aware, and they are unwilling to accept the positive intentions and humility of the culturally incompetent. In the past, many social workers were competent in explaining western models; they now need to have a personal commitment to epistemological equality, whereby Māori models are valued. Applicants for human service positions in Aotearoa/New Zealand are usually asked about the Treaty of Waitangi. The ideal reply would reflect that the applicant has an understanding of, a commitment to, and the ability to apply the Treaty of Waitangi in practice. This brief framework can be applied to cross-cultural practice, where an “understanding of” relates to Māori knowledge and theory development (literacy), a “commitment to” relates to comparisons with one’s own values and making self-reflective choices, and an “ability to apply” follows on from the first two proficiencies, so that skills and knowledge are gained and practiced regularly (fluency).

Although this applies at a personal level, it should be noted that an organizational commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi does not necessar-ily lead to workers exhibiting a well-integrated set of practice skills. The cultural stance of the organizations that mandate human service work are often found in their mission statements or key operating policy and procedures documentation, but these documents can remain mere token expressions of intent unless they are translated into competencies. As pre-viously mentioned, Fleras and Spoonley’s (1999) bicultural continuum positions organizations regarding their commitment to bicultural goals, an approach that aligns well with the Bennett scale’s (1993) ethnorelative and ethnocentric stages. The organizational context is important and can influ-ence a person’s bicultural and cross-cultural practice, but the worker’s own personal commitment requires them to do more than the bare minimum required by the organization.

Page 126: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Bicultural Practice: Beyond Mere tokenism ● 113

Bicultural Positions and Bicultural Practices

In a New Zealand bicultural context, there are three possible cultural con-figurations in human service work: Māori worker and Māori client, non-Māori worker and Māori client, or Māori worker and non-Māori client. Each of these requires the worker to have an understanding of the self before embarking on work with service users. The first configuration, Māori working with Māori, varies according to the worker’s cultural literacy and fluency. There is a clear expectation that mihimihi, karakia, waiata, and other Māori cultural practices are normal and not exotic. Their use again depends on the cultural views and ability of the client and the worker, but a Māori human service worker is expected to be able to lead in these situations. There is a range of cultural literacy and fluency among individual Māori, and cultural expectations may be problematic for those Māori human ser-vice workers who identify as Māori but have little knowledge and skills in Māori cultural practices. At the other end of the spectrum, there are Māori human service workers who are completely committed and able to undertake a Māori process from a position of being steeped in tradition and involvement in the Māori community (Hollis-English 2012). Māori work-ing with Māori will usually also have an awareness of tribal issues, dialects, tribal governance structures, and the nuances of different interpretations of knowledge and concepts.

The second configuration, of non-Māori worker and Māori client, has similar issues in regard to cultural fluency and literacy. Basic skills and knowl-edge in Māori language and cultural practices are a bare minimum if human service workers want to use practice models that are relevant to Māori. Within the authors’ own families, there are individuals who take various cultural positions with regard to being Māori. If these individuals were in the situa-tion of receiving human services, it is our hope that any qualified and reg-istered social worker in Aotearoa/New Zealand would be able to work with them in a confident manner. As with other Māori, it would come down to their individual circumstances, with some requiring a Māori-speaking worker just to engage in the first place. This would not mean they would have to be Māori, but they would have to have the skills and knowledge to respect and competently work with Māori.

The third configuration is that of a Māori worker with a non-Māori cli-ent. One of the authors, when asked by a Pākehā colleague about his views on bicultural practice, replied, “I can work with Pākehā!” This somewhat antihegemonic comment was met by some resistance, as the colleague had preconceived ideas that bicultural was about Pākehā attitudes to Māori and not the other way around. Underpinning this comment from the author was the awareness that Māori workers have always had to work biculturally

Page 127: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

114 ● Anaru Eketone and Shayne Walker

because they live in a settler-dominated society and by necessity have had to learn Pākehā cultural conventions, theory, and practice. Most Māori expect non-Māori to similarly be able to work biculturally: to work with knowledge of Māori worldviews, key concepts, and practices.

True epistemological equality in terms of bicultural practice is already being evidenced by the many Māori human service workers who competently work biculturally with Pākehā. They are well versed in dominant Pākehā language, culture, and social work practice. Māori human service workers also need a certain amount of cultural literacy and fluency that relates to other cultures. The people of different Pacific Island ethnicities (Fijian, Tongan, Samoan, et cetera) all have their own languages, knowledge, social structures, and protocols, and they resent being treated as if they were the same as Māori (Faletolu 2010). We suggest that attaining cultural literacy for one culture other than one’s own enhances one’s capacity for learning in any culture.

The critical issue is how human service workers’ positions with regard to cultural literacy and fluency affect outcomes for the people with whom they work. When workers refuse to learn and demonstrate cross-cultural knowl-edge and skills, they use a “power-over” approach that results in domination (Bishop 2002, 43). It may not be the worker’s intent, but clients can be left feeling completely powerless because the worker is operating from a basis that shares no commonality in terms of meaning-making frameworks (Waldegrave 2012). All people have power within: their own centeredness, their ground-ing in their own beliefs, wisdom, knowledge, skills, culture, and community. Power exercised cooperatively is “power-with” people (Bishop 2002, 43); this develops our cultural literacy and fluency.

Bicultural practice sits within the suite of theories and models that chal-lenge oppression (see chapter 2 for relevant frameworks for practice). Clients often come with any number of features that may disadvantage them: being poor, black, female, disabled, indigenous, and so on. To turn these features into strengths, human service workers may need to ally themselves with multiple oppressed groups. Bishop (2002) and Gibson (2014) discussed the interconnectedness of oppressed groups and oppressor groups and proposed an approach that could apply to all three of the worker/client configura-tions described at the start of this discussion about bicultural positions—the approach of being an “ally.” In the ally model of social justice (Gibson 2014), an ally is one who can stand alongside someone from an oppressed group (such as a different socioeconomic class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity) and create a space where oppressed groups can be supported and where persons from advantaged groups can participate genuinely and supportively, beyond tokenism. According to Bishop (2002), understanding oppression and the various types of oppression are the building blocks of becoming an ally. The

Page 128: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Bicultural Practice: Beyond Mere tokenism ● 115

questions Bishop asked about oppression can be summarized as follows: “How does oppression come about? How does it reproduce itself in individuals and institutions? How do the different oppressions support and reinforce one another?” The authors of this chapter would argue that it is just as important to understand the nature of privilege and advantage and to ask, “How are privilege and advantage created? How are they accrued and by whom? And what underpins these processes?”

Bishop (2002) also highlighted the restorative nature of being an ally, being a conduit for healing and consciousness raising, maintaining hope, and through this becoming an agent of change, helping us achieve our own libera-tion. She described several characteristics that distinguish allies (2002, 111):

● their sense of connection with other people, all other people; ● their grasp of the concept of social structures and collective responsibility; ● their lack of an individualistic stance and ego, although they have a

strong sense of self; ● their sense of process and change; ● their understanding of their own process of learning; their realistic sense

of their own power; ● their grasp of “power-with” as an alternative to “power-over”; ● their honesty, openness, and lack of shame about their own limitations; ● their knowledge and sense of history; ● their acceptance of struggle; ● their understanding that good intentions do not matter if there is no

action against oppression; ● their knowledge of their own roots.

The ally model of social justice is consistent with Māori human service work in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Becoming an ally requires us to look at our own privilege and social position. To enact anti-oppressive values and practices, we align our multiple identities with the oppressions that concern us (Gibson 2014). The authors of this chapter are of middle age, male, and heterosex-ual, and we have good jobs at a university. We therefore occupy numerous places of privilege. For us to stand with women in their fight for equality, for example, we must first acknowledge our place of privilege as males. It is the same when we fight for human rights and social justice: we must identify the privileges that are part of our identity or multiple identities. No matter where persons are in their study or career, they occupy a position in differentness, oppression, and privilege by virtue of their age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and so on. Becoming an ally is a form of critical consciousness raising (or “conscientization” as Freire [1970] termed it) that has a transformative

Page 129: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

116 ● Anaru Eketone and Shayne Walker

outcome for both human service workers and clients (see chapter 7 for more detail). Honest self-reflection and critical thinking about our own social identities are the beginning of becoming a brave, fearless, and useful servant of others.

The attainment of cultural literacy and fluency has a starting point in the understanding of our own history and cultural position. Imagine the hum-ble confidence that comes from getting some practice in another culture. It may be uncomfortable for human service workers to venture beyond their comfort zone, but it will help them establish rapport, gather information, form assessments, and develop plans that are within the meaning-making frameworks of those with whom they work. The real reward of working with people is being part of a process that sees them determining their own emancipation and future. Our own liberation and freedom is really a bonus that encourages us to be “humble experts” (Santiago-Rivera, Arren-dondo, and Gallardo-Cooper 2001, 172) in the culture of the “other.” Lilla Watson, an Australian Aboriginal activist and artist, has often been quoted as saying, “If you have come to help me, I don’t need your help. But if you have come because your liberation is tied to mine, come let us work together” (Watson 1985). This transformative approach really works, and the authors have had the privilege of 30 years of witnessing people changing and getting their lives on track.

Conclusion

This discussion has moved beyond being a professional in whatever field of human services we choose. Many parts of this discussion are vocational and also speak of empathy and the desire to empower, of humility and servanthood. Although a commitment to social justice and human rights is vital, it is this idea of servanthood that encourages us to be better at making relationships in our work. Robinson, Hohepa, and Lloyd (2009, 46) spoke of “open-to-learning conversations,” in which workers consider the quality of thinking and information they use when making judgments about what is happening and what they are going to do about it. Are we only interested in the validity of our own views and imposing those views? Or are we searching for other viewpoints that may improve our thinking and practice? The people we work with do have some ideas about improv-ing their own lives. The outworking of our sometimes eclectic and sophis-ticated perspectives, explanatory and intervention theories, and models of practice should reflect their lived experience and worldviews. This has both vocational and professional elements that will move us beyond mere tokenism.

Page 130: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Bicultural Practice: Beyond Mere tokenism ● 117

Reflective Questions

1. Explore the definition of biculturalism covered in this chapter. How does this definition match your own understanding of biculturalism?

2. How important do you expect the development of a bicultural or indigenous framework will be to you in your pursuit of your studies or future career?

3. What changes might you be able to make in your approach to study, research, or practice in order to develop and promote your use of a bicultural framework?

4. Are there any situations where biculturalism may not be appropriate, and what are these?

References

Bennett, Milton. 1993. “Towards Ethno Relativism: A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity.” In Education for the Intercultural Experience, edited by R. Michael Paige, 21–27. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Berry, John W., and Rudolf Kalin. 1995. “Multicultural and Ethnic Attitudes in Canada: An Overview of the 1991 National Survey.” Canadian Journal of Behav-ioural Science/Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement 27 (3): 301–320. doi:10.1037/0008-400x.27.3.301.

Bishop, Anne. 2002. Becoming an Ally: Breaking the Cycle of Oppression in People. 2nd ed. New York: Zed Books.

Dominelli, Lena. 2002. Introducing Anti-oppressive Theories for Practice in Anti-oppressive Social Work: Theory and Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Durie, Edward T. 2005. “The Rule of Law, Biculturalism and Multiculturalism.” Waikato Law Review 13:41–45. http://www.waikato.ac.nz/law/research/waikato_law_review.

Durie, Mason. 1998. Whaiora: Māori Health Development. 2nd ed. Auckland: Oxford University Press.

Faletolu, Tautalamaleavailumaotamalii Anastasia. 2010. “Assumed Voices of Samoa.” Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 22 (4): 20–31. http://anzasw.org.nz/about/topics/show/207-aotearoa-nz-social-work-review.

Fleras, Augie, and Paul Spoonley. 1999. Recalling Aotearoa: Indigenous Politics and Ethnic Relations in New Zealand. Auckland: Oxford University Press.

Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.Gibson, Priscilla Anne. 2014. “Extending the Ally Model of Social Justice to Social

Work Pedagogy.” Journal of Teaching in Social Work 34 (2): 199–214. doi:10.1080/08841233.2014.890691.

Graham, Douglas. 2001. The Legal Reality of Customary Rights for Maori. Wellington: Treaty of Waitangi Research Unit, Stout Research Centre, Victoria University of Wellington.

Hirsch, Eric D., Jr. 1987. Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Page 131: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

118 ● Anaru Eketone and Shayne Walker

Hollis, Awhina. 2006. “Puao-te-Ata-tu and Māori Social Work Methods.” Master’s thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin.

Hollis-English, Awhina. 2012. Māori Social Workers: Experiences within Social Service Organisations. PhD thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin.

Jackson, Moana. 1994. “Seminar to Community and Family Studies Department.” Lecture presented at the University of Otago, Dunedin.

Lalande, Julia. 2006. “The Roots of Multiculturalism: Ukrainian-Canadian Involve-ment in the Multiculturalism Discussion of the 1960s as an Example of the Position of the ‘Third Force.’” Canadian Ethnic Studies 38 (1): 47–64. http://umanitoba.ca/publications/ces/.

Levine, Hal B. 1987. “The Cultural Politics of Maori Fishing: An Anthropological Perspective on the First Three Significant Waitangi Tribunal Hearings.” The Journal of the Polynesian Society 96 (4): 421–443. http://www.jps.auckland.ac.nz/.

———. 2001. “Can a Voluntary Organisation be a Treaty Partner? The Case of Te Whānau o Waipareira Trust.” Social Policy Journal of New Zealand 17:161–170. http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/.

Marriott, Lisa, and Dalice Sim. 2014. “Indicators of Inequality for Māori and Pacific People.” Wellington: Victoria University Business School. http://apo.org.au/node/41048.

Ministerial Advisory Committee. 1986. “Puao-te-Atatu: The Report of the Ministe-rial Advisory Committee on a Maori Perspective for the Department of Social Welfare.” Wellington: Department of Social Welfare.

NZASW (New Zealand Association of Social Workers). 1993. “Bicultural Code of Practice of the NZASW.” Dunedin: New Zealand Association of Social Workers.

O’Connor, Ian, Jill Wilson, and Deborah Setterlund. 2003. Social Work and Welfare Practice. 4th ed. Frenchs Forrest, NSW: Pearson Education.

O’Reilly, Tom, and David Wood. 1991. “Biculturalism and the Public Sector.” In Reshaping the State: New Zealand’s Bureaucratic Revolution, edited by Jonathon Boston, John Martin, June Pallot and Pat Walsh, 320–342. Auckland: Oxford University Press.

Pon, Gordon. 2009. “Cultural Competency as New Racism: An Ontology of For-getting.” Journal of Progressive Human Services 20 (1): 59–71. doi:10.1080/ 10428230902871173.

Robinson, Vivienne, Margie Hohepa, and Claire Lloyd. 2009. “School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why; Best Evidence Synthesis.” Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Education. http://www.educationcounts .govt.nz/publications/series/2515/60169/60170.

Santiago-Rivera, Azara L. L., Patricia Arrendondo, and Maritza Gallardo-Cooper. 2001. Counseling Latinos and la Familia: A Practical Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Smith, Robert L., Nadia Bakir, and R. Esteban Montilla. 2006. “Counseling and Ther-apy with Latino Families.” In Counseling and Family Therapy with Latino Popula-tions, edited by Robert Smith and Esteban Montilla, 3–25. New York: Routledge.

Smokowski, Paul R., and Martica L. Bacallao. 2007. “Acculturation, Internalizing Mental Health Symptoms, and Self-Esteem: Cultural Experiences of Latino

Page 132: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Bicultural Practice: Beyond Mere tokenism ● 119

Adolescents in North Carolina.” Child Psychiatry and Human Development 37 (3): 273–292. doi:10.1007/s10578-006-0035-4.

Tolich, Martin. 2002. “Pakeha ‘Paralysis’”: Cultural Safety for Those Researching the General Population of Aotearoa.” Social Policy Journal of New Zealand 19: 164–178. http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications -resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/.

Waldegrave, Charles. 2012. “Developing a ‘Just Therapy’: Context and the Ascription of Meaning.” In Discursive Perspectives in Therapeutic Practice, edited by Andy Lock and Tim Strong, 196–211. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Walker, Ranginui. 2004. Ka Whawhai Tonu Mātou: Struggle Without End. Auckland: Penguin.

Walker, Shayne. 2012. “The Teaching of Māori Social Work Practice and Theory to a Predominantly Pākehā Audience.” Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work 24 (3/4): 65–74. http://anzasw.org.nz/about/topics/show/207-aotearoa-nz-social-work-review.

Watson, Lilla. 1985. “Our Liberty Is Bound Together.” Paper presented at the United Nations Decade for Women Conference, Nairobi, July.

Page 133: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

This page intentionally left blank

Page 134: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

CHAPtEr 7

Analyzing and Solving Social Problems

Anita Gibbs

Introduction

Sociologists understand social problems and theorize extensively about the ills of society; however, making sense of social problems and moving beyond mere critique require some new knowledge. The sociological imagination, a term coined by Mills (1959), connects personal troubles, such as receiving a low wage, to public issues, such as poverty, thus enabling sociologists to reflect and theorize about the social and environmental causes of human suffering. The social work imagination, which connects theory to action (praxis), adds ideas about how interventions follow on from explanations and how interventions connect to outcomes. Outcomes, in turn, feed back into theory. Unless social theory is connected to intervention or change, social theory potentially creates a void of unanswered questions, causing a disconnect for sociologists between good theory and real action. The social work imagi-nation ensures that theory cannot be divorced from practice.

This chapter considers how to analyze social problems in such a way that they can be linked to interventive theory and action. Interventive theory addresses the development and use of concrete strategies, like participation, compul-sion, persuasion, and class struggle, in dealing with major social problems. This chapter analyzes one social problem—that of family poverty—utilizing both explanatory and interventive theory to develop change strategies at policy and practice levels. By the end of this chapter, sociologists will have gained a useful framework for tackling social problems from an interventive perspective, at both the social or structural level and the personal level of people’s lives. This chapter draws on Shannon and Young’s (2004) seminal work, Solving Social

Page 135: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

122 ● Anita Gibbs

Problems. In their text, some social problems are labeled as wicked problems, with the term “wicked” used to convey their complexity and pervasiveness, as well as their negative and damaging impact on large numbers of people (Perri 6 1997; Rittel and Webber 1973; Shannon and Young 2004). In order to seriously address wicked problems, intervention must follow on from expla-nation, not necessarily in a linear fashion, but in a way that acknowledges the necessity of understanding the full extent of the problem before acting and of approaching the problem as complex and chaotic.

Social Problems

Social problems—whether poverty, crime, exclusion, discrimination, or disability—are by their very nature major problems, impacting societies at global, national, and local levels. They impact diverse groups in society in multifaceted ways. It is therefore imperative that social problems receive expla-nations and responses at multiple levels, and it is imperative that interventions are also carried out at multiple levels.

An individualistic viewing of social problems might suggest that these are primarily personal problems, affecting many individuals, and that their multiplicity is what creates major issues in society, costing societies billions of dollars. From this perspective, social problems occur after the failure of attempts by individuals to access support from immediate family and networks, as well as from the individuals’ immediate social environments (Smale, Tuson, and Sta-tham 2000). Yet personal problems that affect significant numbers of people have profound political, financial, cultural, economic, and relational impacts, far beyond the individual or family impact. Alternatively, a social problem might be viewed as a problem created by governments, because governments fail to provide for the basic needs of their citizens or because governments allow social problems to exist as a means of exercising social control over those who are vulnerable, sick, and excluded. A related view is that there are multiple stakeholders, which may or may not include governments—whether policy makers, statutory agencies, corporate enterprises, or other institutions—that have the power to create or ignore social problems.

Social problems are not fixed or static, although they persist over time (Epstein 1980). Social problems can be viewed as societal issues emerging from a range of societal contexts and requiring collective responses (Nissen 2014). A broad understanding of social problems is required to take account of the complexity and chaos of the contexts in which problems emerge.

Another way of viewing social problems is that they are created by social and political momentum, particularly through attention in the mass media (Payne 2014). In these circumstances, social problems are viewed not as

Page 136: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Analyzing and Solving Social Problems ● 123

problematic per se but as a product of “claims making” and of the social construction of people’s experiences (Epstein 1980; Payne 2014). This social constructionist position offers an interpretivist understanding (that is, reflect-ing and seeking after meaning) (Payne 2014) of why a problem occurs, but it needs to be combined with a more real-life understanding of the problem to ensure a full analysis and acknowledgment of the problem at all levels in society. Social problems have resulted in the social exclusion and oppression of entire nations, and we therefore cannot entirely view social problems as the product of constructed perceptions and theories about interactions and contexts (Payne 2014). The factual reality of poverty and suffering exists. Whether poverty is created by capitalism, neoliberalism, constructivism, or the whims of so-called socialist dictators, people do remain in debt and financial hardship. This chapter takes the view that social problems can be identified and analyzed with multiple explanations and that social problems can be solved, or at least alleviated, with multiple and concrete interventions.

A Social Problem: Family Poverty in New Zealand

Family poverty, whether absolute (falling below basic standards of living) or relative (in comparison with others in one’s community), is the scourge of global and national societies (Shannon and Young 2004). Poverty is defined in many ways, mostly relative, and includes measures like income poverty, material hardship, severity, and persistence of poverty, as well as health and well-being indicators (Craig et al. 2013). Internationally, poverty has mul-tiple and broad meanings—from material hardships to social exclusion and inequalities to the denial of human and child rights (Redmond 2008). In this chapter, I use the term family poverty alongside that of child poverty, as child poverty is part of the bigger picture of family poverty, and solutions to child poverty are only possible when families are provided with assistance.

New Zealand ranks 19 out of 34 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries for child poverty (rank 1 being the lowest poverty rate), worse than the United Kingdom, Australia, or Sweden (OECD 2011). Craig et al. (2013) found that, in terms of family income, around a quarter (25 percent) of New Zealand children live in poverty, with about 17 percent living in severe poverty, going on a regular basis without enough fresh fruit or vegetables, clothing, or warm and decent housing. They reported that one-third of (indigenous) Māori children and one-third of Pacific Islander ethnicity children live in poor households and that 60 percent of the children living in poverty do so for more than seven years.

Being in debt is enormously problematic for New Zealand families, with 64 percent of single-adult families, with or without children, in debt and

Page 137: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

124 ● Anita Gibbs

with 83 percent of couple families, with or without children, in debt (Legge and Heynes 2009). The combination of poverty and debt, although often deemed relative and temporary, causes lasting damage to families across educational, employment, social, health, and relational domains (Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group 2012). Poverty affects some sectors of society—those who receive welfare benefit payments, single-parent house-holds, and minority ethnic groups—much more substantially than it affects others, namely, those who are employed, who are in two-parent households, and who are members of European/white ethnic groups (Legge and Heynes 2009). The gap between the wealthy and the poor continues to grow (Boston and Chapple 2014; Inside New Zealand 2011).

In 2012, the New Zealand Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group produced a report detailing 78 strategies to reduce child poverty. Some of these recommendations have already been implemented (Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group 2012), and changes to a raft of mea-sures will be monitored to indicate whether poverty is declining. The Child Poverty Monitor project will produce an annual report to monitor the success of the strategies (Craig et al. 2013).

With this brief overview of family poverty in New Zealand in mind, I now explore the application of integrated theory to address social problems generally, before applying the theory to family poverty more specifically.

Explanatory and Interventive Theory for Social Problem Analysis

As is noted in earlier chapters, social work takes a praxis position on theories. Problems are viewed through an analytical or explanatory lens, as well as from an interventionist or outcome oriented perspective. Questions include not only “Why is there a problem? What is the cause?” but also “How can we solve the problems? What do we need to do to change things?” Payne described a theory as “an organised statement of ideas about the world” or about an issue or social problem and said that it must offer “a model of explicit guidance” to address social issues, usually with evidence of its effectiveness (Payne 2005, 5–6). Payne’s understanding of theory was that it must be practice-based and able to suggest concrete strategies of action for change-related outcomes. Payne provided a broad definition of theory to encompass perspectives, explanatory theory, and practice models. According to Payne (2005, 5), perspectives are the views or values that people bring to everyday life, which enable them to “order their minds sufficiently to be able to manage themselves while participating.” Some examples of per-spectives are anti-oppressive, feminist, Christian, socialist, and indigenous; these provide people with guiding principles to bring to social situations,

Page 138: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Analyzing and Solving Social Problems ● 125

interactions, and analyses of social problems (see chapter 2 in this book and Payne 2005, 2014).

In social work, theory cannot be separated from practice, which is why we need to explore both explanatory and interventive theory. Explanatory theory “accounts for why an action results in or causes particular consequences and identifies the circumstances in which it does so” (Payne 2005, 5). For each explanatory theory, there is a potential interventive theory. Interventive the-ory, while not discussed in detail by Payne, was highlighted by Shannon and Young (2004) as an essential component of theory, as it seeks to develop the how of explanatory theory. If a social problem has different levels or theories of explanation, then interventive theory will provide different strategies (the how) to address the problem. Some of these strategies may lead to the devel-opment of specific practice models to be applied in a specific social problem context. For example, a participatory strategy to address the problem of crime promotes the use of a family group conference practice model. Payne also suggested that models attempt to describe what happens in practice. Mod-els are designed either to apply to a wide range of problems—for example the task-centered model, which can be applied in multiple situations—or to apply very specifically, such as the straight thinking model, which is used primarily for work with offenders. In the case of crime, the explanatory republican theory (focused on the absence of interference with liberty) and reintegrative shaming theory (focused on constructive use of shame to recon-nect people to their communities) link strongly to the interventive strategies of participation and reintegration (Braithwaite 1989; Braithwaite and Pettit 1994). In chapter 4, Keddell and Stanley provide clear examples of the use of the strengths perspective and the signs of safety approach in work with children and families.

Payne’s broad definition of theory (2005, 2014) was somewhat limited in its linear presentation of ideas, and it potentially misleads readers to think that explanation leads directly to intervention or that explaining the cause of a social problem will lead to an obvious solution. Rittel and Webber (1973, 166), in referring to wicked problems, noted that “the choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s resolution” but that we cannot test such linear presentations in a scientific manner. However, just because we cannot always test the link between a problem’s cause and its resolution, that does not mean that a link is not there or that we should not try to resolve the problem. Rittel and Webber (1973) noted that people choose explanations that seem most plausible to them and act accordingly; in other words, their reasoning is often not scientific but makes sense to them.

Shannon and Young (2004) extended Payne’s ideas into a useful framework for solving social problems. The framework is further adapted here, to encourage

Page 139: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

126 ● Anita Gibbs

sociologists to integrate explanation and intervention for the nexus between personal troubles and public issues. In the adapted framework, six explana-tory theories are used; each is considered at two levels: the social/structural and the personal. The six explanatory theories correspond to six interventive strategies; these too are described at the social/structural and personal levels. (Another level, the organizational, could have been added, but in the inter-ests of brevity and simplicity, I have limited it to the social/structural and personal levels.) Shannon and Young’s adapted framework can be illustrated visually; see Figure 7.1.

The theories presented in this chapter are both socially constructed and contested, and they are constantly changing and evolving. When they are used in practice situations, they are usually applied eclectically, rather than in a purist manner. In true praxis fashion, the theories are then reevaluated by feedback from the practice or problem areas to which they have been applied and then improved or extended. Hence, as Payne (2014) argued, each theory must be reflexive and able to adapt to changing client views, as well as to the social environments in which clients find themselves.

Perspectives(world view)

(Examples Only)

Theory(explanatory)

Theory(interventive)

Practice Models(general)

(Examples Only)

Social/Structural

Level

PersonalLevel

Freedom

Equality

Feminism

Antiracist

Green

Indigenous

Human rights

Justice

Empowerment

Christian

Individual

Determinist

Peace

Merit

Liberal/Neoliberal

Socialist

Alternative/Communitarian

Cognitive/Behavioral

Radical

Humanist

Compulsion

Class struggle

Participatory/ Democracy

Behavior modi�cation/

Cognitive restructuring

Consciousness raising

Advocacy, empowerment, self-

determination

Social planningProfessional

control models

Anti-oppressive practice

Community actionCommunity development

Cognitive-behavioral therapy

Welfare rightsRadical

nonintervention

Strengths modelNarrative therapy

Family group conferences

Figure 7.1 Relationships between Perspectives, Theories, and ModelsSource: Adapted from Shannon and Young 2004, 27.

Page 140: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Analyzing and Solving Social Problems ● 127

Explanatory Theories and Social Problems

I now consider some explanatory theories at both the social/structural and personal levels, with the caveat that we do not hold on to fixed identities or static understandings of theory. Three explanatory theories are considered at the social/structural level: liberal/neoliberal theory, socialist theory, and alter-native theory. I also consider three explanatory theories at the personal level: cognitive-behavioral, radical, and humanist. Some of these theories are more established than are others, and some have had significant influence in the broad fields of health and social welfare (Nzira and Williams 2008; Shannon and Young 2004).

Liberal/Neoliberal Theory

Liberal and neoliberal theory posit that individuals meet their own needs through free and independent actions (Nzira and Williams 2008) and that it is the duty and responsibility of individuals to look after themselves and achieve their own goals. Liberal theory has individual freedom at its heart, and the government’s role is to regulate this within the operation of a free market, with minimal government interference, often by enabling nongov-ernmental entities or private companies to provide services. Neoliberalism has more emphasis on the duty and responsibility of the individual (Nzira and Williams 2008). Under liberalism and neoliberalism, “the economy is seen as having a self-balancing, trickle-down effect. Market mechanisms are expected to ensure protection for all, supported by other forms of nonstate help, while protecting individual freedom” (Nzira and Williams 2008, 65). This theory operates through the assumption that free individuals with a clear sense of equality enter the marketplace to buy and sell resources, both material and nonmaterial. The processes of market competition and rational choice ensure that “efficiency will be rewarded and in this way resources will be made available to all and social wellbeing achieved” (Shannon and Young 2004, 28).

In regard to any country with a high level of government involvement in society—New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, and other European countries are examples—the liberal/neoliberal view would see those coun-tries as being dominated by inefficient governments that have misdirected resources and stifled initiative. It would see one solution as being abolish-ment of government intervention and the welfare state, or reduction to a residual level. Under this theory, people are viewed as capable of meeting their own needs, and individuals must therefore make greater efforts to become self-supporting and efficient. Any welfare assistance people receive should be reduced to an absolute minimum to give them the incentive to work,

Page 141: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

128 ● Anita Gibbs

rather than depend on the government (Shannon and Young 2004). Social problems are understood in liberal/neoliberal theory to result from both personal failure to succeed or make the right choices and a failure of market mechanisms to ensure that riches and resources are shared out fairly to all members of society (Russell, Harris, and Gockel 2008).

Socialist Theory

Socialist theory uses a class analysis, linked to ownership and nonownership of wealth, as its starting point. Socialist thinking views society not as the aggregate of free individuals but as a structure, based on class, in which the government acts to promote the interests of capital against those of workers (Shannon and Young 2004). Genuine freedom and equality will come only when workers possess themselves of the government’s power, sometimes through revolutionary processes that abolish private ownership of the means of production (Shannon and Young 2004). Nzira and Williams (2008, 47) argued, “Socialism advocates state involvement to create, promote and protect the rights of citizens. The interventions are thought to be necessary so as to off-set the inequalities brought about by capitalism and free markets,” suggesting that governments can act to overcome the tendency of the market to promote the interests of the wealthy, by treating all citizens equally. To achieve well-being for all, a socialist approach, in contrast to a liberal approach, would therefore favor abolishment of private ownership of wealth to allow for collective and cooperative ownership of resources.

Socialist theory views social problems as organized around class: the upper classes possess wealth and experience few social problems, whereas people belonging to the working classes have little wealth or ownership of the means of gaining wealth, and they are therefore more likely to be poor and oppressed (Freire 2000). Socialist theory does not blame individuals for their predica-ments; it advocates a redistribution of resources toward a more egalitarian society as a way of solving social problems.

Alternative Theory

Alternative theory, also known as communitarian theory, has as its starting point the belief that social problems result from the breakdown of communi-ties, networks, and relationships and that the resolution of such problems only occurs when communities work together inclusively, from a grassroots level, to advocate for action (Shannon and Young 2004). Alternative theory uses a community construction of reality as its starting point; this can include indig-enous and other groups’ constructions of community. The theory challenges

Page 142: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Analyzing and Solving Social Problems ● 129

dominant worldviews that have marginalized indigenous and other minority groups, as well as any worldviews that have led to fragmenting or polarizing approaches to dealing with problems. Alternative theory includes the notions of self-determination, sustainability, and participation by all communities in protecting their own environments and planning for their own futures. Alter-native thinking is inclusive of all groups; it locates power and power sharing within communities rather than with politicians, professionals, or collectives of the working class.

Alternative theory argues that decision making should be taken to the lowest possible level, enabling participation by all people in the community unit to which they belong and of which they have ownership (Shannon and Young 2004). Decision making is bottom-up, and accountability is maximized across all levels of society.

The government’s role under alternative theory is to decentralize power and encourage power sharing among all interest groups in society. In an alterna-tive model, the government would encourage and help its citizens to join the community (cultural group, interest group, geographical group) to which they will relate and to become involved in decision making relevant to their group, including decisions about the care of their families. Community develop-ment, in terms of enabling communities to take control of their own lives, is the key form of welfare practice (Clarke 2013).

We now turn to personal-level explanatory theories.

Cognitive-Behavioral Theory

Cognitive theory and behavioral theory are often combined into one approach, drawing on psychological theories of learning, social learning, and cognition. More recently, mindfulness based practices—involving reflective, nonjudg-mental awareness of thoughts and feelings—have been incorporated into cognitive-behavioral theories and approaches to interventions (Beck et al. 2001; Dobson and Dobson 2009; Follette, Palm, and Pearson 2006; Payne 2014). Cognitive-behavioral theory offers some explanation of how people develop, learn, and behave, emphasizing conscious thinking or behavior rather than unconscious processes. Thinking is linked to behavior, and an individual’s problems are viewed as arising partly from irrational thinking or from making poor choices (Beck et al. 2001; Russell, Harris, and Gockel 2008). A key assumption of this theory is that because behavior and cognitions are learned, change can be achieved by unlearning old beliefs or behaviors and learning new, more helpful beliefs and behaviors.

The theory has been critiqued as being too individualized, with undue emphasis on negative thought processes and on trying to change the individual

Page 143: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

130 ● Anita Gibbs

rather than on dealing with the structural determinants of problems (Dobson and Dobson 2009; Payne 2014). It is most useful when used in combination with practice models that value the strengths of the client, so that the client is not blamed for “faulty thinking.” Cognitive-behavioral theory has been applied to many problems, including anxiety, phobias, and deviant behaviors. It can promote a task or problem-centered interventionist model (Epstein 1980).

To draw a link to social problems, this theory would suggest that people learn poor social skills from poor role models—parents and peers—in child-hood (Milkman and Wanberg 2012; Shannon and Young 2004) and that these poor skills, repeated widely across a population, are one of the roots of wider social problems. Problem behaviors may exist because they have been taught and reinforced from childhood and passed down from genera-tion to generation. Intervention would suggest unlearning poor behavior and learning new, more prosocial and useful skills. Cognitive-behavioral theory has been developed into some well-used helping programs, such as prosocial modeling and the straight thinking program, both of which are widely used in prison rehabilitation and in some social services in Australasia, the United Kingdom, and North America (Trotter 2009). Mindfulness and cognitive-behavioral therapy, focused on the individual, seek to empower clients to decide goals and tasks for change, which may include attitudes or behaviors that they want to either reduce or increase, in order to enhance their well-being (Dobson and Dobson 2009; Follette, Palm, and Pearson 2006).

Radical Theory

Radical theory draws attention to the fact that many of the problems that people face arise from the way society is structured. The theory objects to the individualizing of these problems as personal deficits, when in fact the prob-lems have been created by the interaction of social, economic, and political factors, such as poverty, racism, and sexism, on individuals. Radical theory critiques power relations, state-based oppression, and the exclusion of par-ticular groups, including women, working-class people, people of color, and people with different sexual orientations. At its heart, radical theory reveals a commitment to social and political change, at individual, community, and societal levels; action is required at all levels but starts with the individual. Radical theory encourages the deconstruction of knowledge and ideologies of exclusion and advocates a collective approach to solving social problems. It encourages individuals to work with others in similar circumstances to high-light the personal impact of a problem across large numbers of people. An analysis of power relations is a precursor to interventions, which should result in redistribution of resources to, and empowerment of, excluded individuals.

Page 144: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Analyzing and Solving Social Problems ● 131

In order to maintain a focus on change, radical theory emphasizes the impor-tance of advocacy and empowerment. The limitations of radical theory include that a structural and collective understanding of a social problem may not necessarily achieve change or empowerment for specific individuals who are in dire poverty or need.

Humanist Theory

Humanist theory, or humanism, focuses on “the capacity of conscious human beings to reason, make choices, and act freely” in a nondeterministic way, free of the influence of gods and religious perspectives (Payne 2014, 275). It is associated with concepts of participation, democracy, and worth; all people are viewed as having worth, equality, and a right to participate. It has several key tenets:

● self-actualization: the ability to fully develop emotionally, spiritually, intel-lectually, and physically to obtain fulfillment of one’s potential, although this is only possible when basic human needs are met (Rogers 1961)

● a hierarchy of such needs, from physiological to safety to belonging to esteem, with the need for positive regard (love) being paramount (Maslow 1943)

● the belief that every individual has the internal resources for growth, if these are not blocked

● the belief that blockage leads to the creation of a negative self-concept

If basic physical and emotional needs have not been met (usually in child-hood and carried through to adulthood), persons are unable to fully function, so they fail to realize their potential. From a humanist viewpoint, social problems that people face are addressed through practical interventions (such as provi-sion of food and clothing), emotional interventions (such as counseling), and perhaps spiritual support. People are not seen as bad or deviant, but as having value and worth and as deserving of help and care. Most important, they are seen as having the potential to make decisions for themselves on their pathway to wholeness and fulfillment. One limitation of humanist theory is that the theory is overly optimistic, crediting all people with having the inner resources for change or growth, when for some people change is not possible.

Interventive Theories and Strategies

Interventive theories generally relate to corresponding explanatory theories, as the latter have theories of change built into them. Interventive theory

Page 145: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

132 ● Anita Gibbs

connects the why to the how; it suggests the mechanism or strategy by which action may be taken to solve the problem. For example, liberal theory’s idea of efficiency can lead to the use of compulsion to bring about change. Like explanatory theory (as was noted earlier), interventive theory is also socially constructed and is often legitimized by those who have choice and consider a theory plausible.

Three interventive theories that operate at the social/structural level are outlined: compulsion, class struggle, and participation. These are followed by three interventive theories that operate at the personal level: behavior modi-fication and cognitive restructuring; consciousness raising; and advocacy, empowerment, and self-determination.

Compulsion

Compulsion theory takes an approach based on the concept of legitimate authority, by which the ruling authorities have the right to use force in their territorial setting. Change is seen to occur effectively when people are compelled to act as required by law, market forces, or policy. This can include not only change that is absolutely required by the authority but also persuasion and manipulation to keep to the rules. This theory is especially associated with liberal and conservative thought. In a modern neoliberal context, the compulsion is rarely violent, but it is often both covert and overt, with poli-cies from government being implemented in such a way that members of society feel they have no choice but to conform to what is expected of them. There is a sense that change is inevitable and that to resist it would be futile. An example of compulsion might be the provision of tax benefits for couples but not for singles, thus pressuring single people to enter partnerships to gain some financial benefits. Such compulsion could also impose penalties if couples separate or divorce.

Class Struggle

The class struggle theory is associated mostly with Marxism and socialist thought. The theory argues that only a revolution, brought about by the work-ing class undertaking a collective class struggle to overthrow the capitalist ruling class, can solve social problems. A major first step is to bring the exploited masses to an understanding of their exploitation. Much effort is directed to making people aware of the real nature of their exploitation, by raising their consciousness (Freire 2000) or by critiquing the power of the dominant class (hegemony), so that the current social structure is no longer widely accepted by the lower classes (Gramsci 1971). This interventive strategy needs to be

Page 146: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Analyzing and Solving Social Problems ● 133

political and anti-oppressive in nature, in order to bring real change at the structural level.

Participation/Democracy

Participation theory, as an approach to change, is based on the idea of self-determination: that everyone should be involved in deciding what changes they want for themselves and that people are the best definers of their own interests. It has been widely used in recent years in the ecological, feminist, indigenous, and sustainability movements. Ife (2012) argued that participatory democracy is a fundamental human right and that all voices must be heard from all sec-tors of society. Key concepts are reciprocal participation, control of decision making, and community empowerment. Community empowerment from the bottom up allows for all members in society to have a say on matters that affect them (Clarke 2013; New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services 2009). Clarke (2013) suggested that the people most expert at solving a problem are those suffering deeply from that problem and that they should therefore take the lead—their definitions, their languages, their solutions, and their processes.

We now turn to three interventive theories that operate at the personal level.

Behavior Modification and Cognitive Restructuring

Cognitive-behavioral therapy intervenes by identifying irrational thinking and behaviors and replacing them with more useful thinking and behaviors. Change might be achieved through behavior modification, whereby people with problems gradually learn new skills to overcome the issues they face. Behavioral work involves practicing these new skills in everyday stress-ful situations. Cognitive restructuring or reframing involves challenging unhelpful beliefs (such as “I am poor because I am a loser”) and replacing them with more reasonable beliefs (“I am poor because I am unable to get a job, and I may find employment in the future”) (Beck et al. 2001). Both cognitive restructuring and behavior modification require time and practice. These strategies have been used extensively by those working in the welfare professions.

Consciousness Raising

Although consciousness raising is a key strategy of class struggle theory at the structural level, it can also be applied at the personal level. Individuals need to understand their own oppression and how they might collude in it. Once

Page 147: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

134 ● Anita Gibbs

their consciousness has been raised, they are then able to work with similar others to challenge oppressive systems and bring about change. An example might be a situation in which the working poor create a support network and actively lobby their local legislative representative for improved wages and cheaper health services. Lobbying may occur through street protest, petitions, boycotts, or demonstrations at representatives’ offices. Interventive action using this theory is deliberative, radical, collective, and anti-oppressive.

Advocacy, Empowerment, and Self-Determination

Advocacy, empowerment, and self-determination enable people to create their own communities, make connections, and address problems (Hiebert and Swan 1999). They enable inclusion and agency of people who have been on society’s margins, socially excluded from institutions, opportunities, and resources (Redmond 2008). Employing this kind of intervention in the human services requires the worker to give up control and to advocate for and support the capacity of citizens to do the work themselves, as participants rather than as clients (Hiebert and Swan 1999). As can be seen in previous chapters (chapters 2 and 3), empowerment and advocacy allow “people to overcome barriers in achieving life objectives” (Payne 2005, 295). Empowerment enables people to define their own needs and to arrange or even create their own care services (Lewis 2013). Indigenous frameworks (see chapter 6) use a self-deterministic strategy whereby different people groups are free to create new narratives, using their own cultures, protocols, language, and concepts to tackle social problems.

Applying the Theoretical Framework to Family Poverty

We can apply Shannon and Young’s (2004) adapted framework to the problem of family poverty, applying explanatory and interventive theories at both the social/structural and the personal levels.

Social/Structural Level Explanatory and Interventive Theories

According to the liberal/neoliberal explanatory theory, family poverty can be explained by the inability of people to make the right choices that will enable them to gain good qualifications and well-paid jobs. The market treats everyone the same, so it is up to individuals to make the most of market-based opportunities. If they end up in poverty, it might be viewed as their fault; governments will, however, provide a minimal safety net to keep people from absolute poverty. The government role is to be hands off, leaving the markets to their influence and leaving people to make their own choices, good or bad.

Page 148: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Analyzing and Solving Social Problems ● 135

The corresponding interventive theory, compulsion, would suggest that gov-ernment policy on family poverty be focused on clear rules and requirements for people receiving government assistance, so that those receiving welfare benefit payments or other assistance do so on the condition that they do what is necessary to gain paid employment. In this scenario, it is usually the “deserving poor” (those who are unwell or have children, for example) who receive government assistance, while the rest, the “undeserving poor,” have to provide for themselves. Social policies are seen as needing to be constructed so as to get people out of the “culture of poverty” (Shannon and Young, 2004). One such example might be reduced business taxation and business costs to stimulate job growth. Another, more negative, example would be reducing welfare benefit payments to individuals who start a new job but then leave without reasonable cause soon after starting.

Socialist explanatory theory explains family poverty as arising from the exploitation and unjust treatment of certain groups in society by those with power and money (Freire 2000). The only way to deal with family poverty would therefore be to overthrow unjust social structures and share out the wealth of the nation to different collectives that are based on nonexploit-ative relations. This theory leads to the corresponding interventive theory of class struggle, whereby the working classes combine resources and energy and campaign against low wages, exploitation, and oppression by those with wealth. Family poverty would be solved by governments sharing out the nation’s wealth and introducing a collective mode of operation in society.

Alternative theory starts with the community and suggests that family poverty arises where there is a disconnect between different power systems, so that resources are not shared equally among many different groups, and where there is a breakdown of supportive network structures, for example, the loss of connection to one’s indigenous heritage or the closure of local churches. The corresponding interventive theory is that of participation, whereby groups are enabled to have participatory and decision-making power. Clarke (2013) argued that poverty has its root causes in governance and leadership but that community voice, advocacy, and grassroots community development can be used to achieve positive change. An example of alternative theory in action in New Zealand has been the development of community hubs to encourage local groups to start up initiatives to reduce family poverty at the grassroots level (Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group 2012).

Personal-Level Explanatory and Interventive Theories

Cognitive-behavioral theory would explain family poverty at the personal level by suggesting that people have not been able to gain skills or attitudes

Page 149: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

136 ● Anita Gibbs

that would enable them to have productive and successful employment. The parents in poor families might well have grown up in poor households themselves and have no knowledge or experience of ways to escape poverty. Using an interventive theory of behavior modification and/or cognitive restructuring, one might be able to assist families in gaining new skills and insights to help them out of the poverty trap. Use of a problem-solving or task-centered model (see chapter 2) might, for example, help parents to set and achieve goals of budgeting and attainment of educational qualifications. A more negative application of cognitive-behavioral intervention might be forcing young unemployed people to attend job-seeking classes or to attend psychological screening and treatment to challenge their so-called defeatist attitudes in regard to work (Beck et al. 2001; Dobson and Dobson 2009).

Radical theory applied at the personal level would explain the causes of family poverty as exclusion and oppression by powerful groups of less powerful groups, often through class, race, or gender divisions in society. The interven-tive theory of change would employ active consciousness raising and/or resis-tance. It might suggest that families in poverty speak out about the oppressions they face and create groups of families in similar circumstances who refuse to be oppressed by other groups with more wealth or power. Resistance might involve some form of political struggle—for example, creation of a residents group to insist on warmer, more accessible housing for poorer families.

Humanist theory applied at the personal level would explain family pov-erty from the position that individuals within the family unit have not had their full range of needs met and are therefore not able to realize their full potential. The interventive theory would involve advocacy, empowerment, and self-determination. Families in poverty would define their own social, financial, educational, emotional, cultural, and relational needs and be given the resources and support required to meet those needs. Once those needs were met, poverty would be eliminated in those families. Professionals would work alongside self-determining poor families and use the constructs and ideas developed by those families. They would seek to ensure that poor families participate fully in achieving change for themselves and for their own communities. If people are able to actively participate in solving their own problems, then social capital is built and social networks and relation-ships are strengthened, which is beneficial for all (Staples 2012). Such active self-determination gives people the freedom to live a life that they value, for themselves and for their families (Redmond 2008).

Conclusion

This chapter has outlined the need to approach social problems comprehen-sively, from theory through to action. It has shown that explanatory theory

Page 150: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Analyzing and Solving Social Problems ● 137

needs to be coupled with interventive theory, to analyze and to take action, in order to address social problems. The adapted framework of Shannon and Young (2004) helps sociologists and social workers to apply grand theory and practice approaches together, so that workers from both disciplines can increase their ability to actively solve or ameliorate some of the wicked prob-lems of the day.

Reflective Questions

1. What do you believe to be the key issues for human service workers (including policy makers) to consider when working with families in poverty?

2. How do you define a social work imagination? How might having a social work imagination influence your approach to working with people?

3. How can you use ideas from this chapter to develop social and personal strategies of intervention for a social problem that concerns you?

4. How useful have you found Shannon and Young’s (2004) adapted framework to be for exploring and solving social problems?

References

Beck, Aaron, Andrew Butler, Gregory Brown, Katherine Dahlsgaard, Cory Newman, and Judith Beck. 2001. “Dysfunctional Beliefs Discriminate Personality Disorders.” Behav-ior Research and Therapy 39 (10): 1213–1225. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(00)00099-1.

Boston, Jonathon, and Simon Chapple. 2014. Child Poverty in New Zealand. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books.

Braithwaite, John. 1989. Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Braithwaite, John, and Philip Pettit. 1994. “Republican Criminology and Victim Advocacy.” Law and Society Review 28 (4): 765–776. doi:10.2307/3053994.

Children’s Commissioner Expert Advisory Group. 2012. Solutions to Child Poverty in New Zealand: Evidence for Action. Wellington: Children’s Commissioner. http://www.occ.org.nz/assets/Uploads/EAG/Final-report/Final-report-Solutions-to-child-poverty-evidence-for-action.pdf.

Clarke, Chris. 2013. “The Foolishness to Believe We Can Make a Difference.” The Journal of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner 83 (Spring): 8–10. http://www .occ.org.nz/assets/Uploads/Journals/Children-83.pdf.

Craig, Elizabeth, Anne Reddington, Andrew Wicken, Glenda Oben, and Jean Simpson. 2013. Child Poverty Monitor 2013 Technical Report. Updated 2014. Dunedin: Child and Youth Epidemiology Service, University of Otago. http://www.nzchildren .co.nz/.

Dobson, Deborah, and Keith S. Dobson. 2009. Evidence-Based Practice of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy. New York: Guilford Press.

Page 151: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

138 ● Anita Gibbs

Epstein, Laura. 1980. Helping People: The Task-Centered Approach. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby.Follette, Victoria, Kathleen Palm, and Adria Pearson. 2006. “Mindfulness and

Trauma: Implications for Treatment.” Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy 24 (1): 45–61. doi:10.1007/s10942.006.0025.02.

Freire Paulo. 2000. The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 30th anniversary ed. New York: Continuum.

Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, edited and translated by Quinton Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. New York: International Publishers.

Hiebert, Walter, and David Swan. 1999. “Positively Fit: A Case Study in Community Development and the Role of Participatory Action Research.” Community Devel-opment Journal 34 (4): 356–364. doi:10.1093/cdj/34.4.356.

Ife, Jim. 2012. Human Rights and Social Work: Towards Rights-Based Practice. 3rd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Inside New Zealand. 2011. Inside Child Poverty. Directed by Bryan Bruce. Televi-sion New Zealand: TVNZ 3, Broadcast 22nd November. http://www.etv.org.nz/programme.php?id=36884.

Legge, Jaimie, and Anne Heynes. 2009. “Beyond Reasonable Debt: A Background Report on the Indebtedness of New Zealand Families.” Social Policy Journal of New Zealand 35 (June): 27–42. http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj35/35-beyond-reasonable-debt.html.

Lewis, Joanne. 2013. “Empowerment.” In Key Concepts in Social Work Practice, edited by Aidan Worsley, Tim Mann, Angela Olsen, and Elizabeth Mason-Whitehead, 70–73. London: Sage.

Maslow, Abraham. 1943. “A Theory of Human Motivation.” Psychological Review 50 (4): 370–396. doi:10.1037/h0054346.

Milkman, Harvey, and Kenneth Wanberg. 2012. Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment for Adolescents: Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change. Los Angeles: Sage.

Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services. 2009. Grassroots Voices. Welling-

ton: New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services. http://www.nzccss.org.nz/uploads/publications/GrassrootsVoices.pdf.

Nissen, Maria Appel. 2014. “In Search for a Sociology of Social Problems for Social Work.” Qualitative Social Work 13 (4): 555–570. doi:10.1177/1473325013506928.

Nzira, Viola, and Paul Williams. 2008. Anti-oppressive Practice in Health and Social Care. London: Sage.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2011. Doing Better For Families. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264098732-en.

Payne, Malcolm. 2005. Modern Social Work Theory. 3rd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

———. 2014. Modern Social Work Theory. 4th ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Perri 6. 1997. Holistic Government. London: DEMOS.

Page 152: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Analyzing and Solving Social Problems ● 139

Redmond, Gerry. 2008. “Child Poverty and Child Rights: Edging towards a Definition.” Journal of Children and Poverty 14 (1): 63–82. doi:10.1080/ 1079612 0701871298.

Rittel, Horst W. J., and Melvin M. Webber. 1973. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy Sciences 4 (2): 155–169. doi:10.1007/BF01405730.

Rogers, Carl. 1961. On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Russell, Mary, Barbara Harris, and Annemarie Gockel. 2008. “Parenting in Poverty:

Perspectives of High-Risk Parents.” Journal of Children and Poverty 14 (1): 83–98. doi:10.1080/10796120701871322.

Shannon, Pat, and Sue Young. 2004. Solving Social Problems: Southern Perspectives. Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press.

Smale, Gerald, Graham Tuson, and Daphne Statham. 2000. Social Work and Social Problems. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Staples, Lee. 2012. “Community Organizing for Social Justice: Grassroots Groups for Power.” Social Work with Groups 35 (3): 287–296. doi:10.1080/01609513.2012.656233.

Trotter, Chris. 2009. “Pro-social Modelling.” European Journal of Probation 1 (2): 142–152. doi:10.1177/206622030900100206.

Page 153: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

This page intentionally left blank

Page 154: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

CHAPtEr 8

Stress and Violence in the Workplace: theory and Practice

Kate van Heugten and Cathryne L. Schmitz

Introduction

Work in the human services—whether on the frontlines or as a policy analyst, grant writer, researcher, manager, or teacher—is potentially satisfying and rewarding. It can also be extremely stressful, beyond the expectations of those starting out in a career. Educators are sometimes reluctant to tell students about the extent of the stress they might encounter in work, fearing that to do so might frighten them. Yet students, new entrants to practice, and seasoned workers find it helpful to receive information that normalizes the impacts of work pressures. They need the tools to identify unreasonable expectations and the knowledge to challenge those expectations. When overstressed workers receive information that recognizes the negative impacts of highly demand-ing and poorly resourced jobs, they often feel relieved. Critical sociological perspectives help us to challenge discourses that pathologize workers who become distressed when they face pressures, lack appropriate control over professional decisions, or receive too little support. Social work knowledge builds on these theoretical insights, adding to them with understandings derived from practice.

Some particular stresses are typically encountered in human service roles. One of these is the realization of the painful circumstances of service users’ lives. Being exposed to other people’s losses and difficulties has a powerful impact on empathic people and can be traumatizing (McCann and Pearlman 1990). Collegial and supervisory support, coupled with attention to the pre-vention of work overload, can help to ease that impact (Hunter and Schofield 2006; van Heugten 2011a).

Page 155: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

142 ● Kate van Heugten and Cathryne L. Schmitz

Many workers find the ongoing lack of resources in the social services the most difficult stress to grapple with. Workers who set out on a career aimed at ameliorating social injustices become disillusioned when lack of resources means that they are unable to help their clients meet basic requirements, such as adequate housing, livable incomes, health care, and parenting sup-port. And while these microlevel practice difficulties can be daunting, the macrolevel goals of creating lasting social change can seem so unattainable as to bring on a sense of hopelessness (van Heugten 2011a).

In addition, violence from service users (Littlechild 2005; Lowe and Korr 2007) and incivility and bullying from colleagues and managers both appear to be more prevalent in the hospitality industry and in education, health, and social services than in other occupations (Bentley et al. 2009; Zapf et al. 2011). When people elect to work in human service occupations, their prime motivations are usually altruistic. The discovery that human ser-vice users, fellow workers, managers, and powerful external interest groups may mete out violence against them can violate assumptions and shatter worldviews, causing significant distress.

Many human service workers, including frontline workers and manag-ers, begin their work lives unaware of the prevalence of workplace conflict and violence, the forms they might take, the impacts, and in particular what can be done to professionally survive these events. This lack of information is only just beginning to change. In recognition of the financial and human costs of workplace violence, governments are increasingly putting in place health and safety legislation, or more specific workplace violence legislation, to protect workers. More organizations are instigating their own relevant policies. Although the helpfulness of such measures is debated, their existence offers recognition of the seriousness of workplace violence. Workplace conflict is now also more likely to be addressed in social work education.

The emphasis in this chapter is on recognizing that stress in human service work is normal but that unduly high demands and lack of resources should not be the norm. Nor should high levels of workplace conflict be accepted or incivility and violence be condoned. Because collegial violence in the form of bullying and mobbing is often underreported in the literature, and because its frequency may be increasing in the current neoliberal context, this chapter focuses attention on these major sources of stress.

Workplace Stress

What Is Stress?

One of the most important things to understand about stress is that it is a neutral term, referring to pressures or demands. Some stress is healthy and

Page 156: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Stress and Violence in the Workplace: theory and Practice ● 143

energizes us; this healthy stress has also been called eustress (Selye 1976). Short bursts of demands activate physiological processes, including hormonal processes. As long as our bodies return to a resting state within minutes or hours, these short bursts of stress appear to promote good health and may strengthen the immune system (Dhabhar 2009). Without stress, without some challenging demands, we can become bored. Social scientists tend to be people who enjoy grappling with uncertainty, and human service work gener-ally does not attract those who prefer to know exactly what situations they will face in a working day, especially in terms of human interactions. When high levels of pressure go on for a long time, however, or when they outstrip our internal and external resources to meet them, they begin to distress us. When we are distressed, we are often unable to think clearly; we may lose sleep, begin to become reactive, and possibly make mistakes.

Some well-established theories explain these stress processes. These include Karasek and Theorell’s (1990) demand-control-support model of workplace stress, which postulates that high demands can be energizing, as long as professional people have a fair degree of autonomy over how they undertake their work, and they are well resourced and emotionally supported to carry out their roles. Theories such as these, which have been tested and found to apply across a range of cultures and occupations (Landy and Conte 2007), are helpful in understanding what causes stress overload for human service workers. They also provide some answers about what we can do to prevent this overload (van Heugten 2011a).

Social workers engage in highly demanding practice, and they are expected to remain reflective and calm in the most trying of circumstances. Their thinking about stress is therefore probably ahead of the thinking of more theoretical social scientists. Social workers’ struggles have given rise to some solutions from which other disciplines can benefit.

Dealing with Stress Overload

Should attempts to understand the causes of stress overload help us to pre-vent it? Ideally, the answer to this question would be “yes.” In reality, how-ever, this is an unrealistic goal; at best, we can hope to limit the extent of suffering. The balancing of challenge and overload is not an exact science. The point at which stress changes from challenge to distress will be different for different people and will alter for individuals as they find themselves in different circumstances over time. For example, in the aftermath of the earth-quakes of 2010 and 2011 in Canterbury, New Zealand, many women who had previously enjoyed traveling for their jobs began to find this requirement intolerable. They were mothers, and they wanted to be close to their children

Page 157: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

144 ● Kate van Heugten and Cathryne L. Schmitz

during the ongoing aftershocks so that they could protect and comfort them (van Heugten 2014). This is just one example showing that “fit” is an inter-action between people and contexts, as identified in French, Caplan, and Van Harrison’s (1982) person-environment fit model of stress. The person-environment fit model is an ecological model—that is, one that encourages us to take into account a wide range of personal and contextual factors (see chapter 2 for a discussion about ecological models). It is less testable than the demand-control-support theory because of the wide range of possibly relevant variables. It is nevertheless a helpful model, as long as we are aware that it can be open to misuse: when people become distressed by an intolerable work-place situation, their distress can be blamed on “lack of fit,” thereby avoiding a thorough critique of the contextual issues at play (van Heugten 2011a).

More general research into stress overload in social work and human services has given rise to some good general guidelines. People can find it difficult, how-ever, to follow such guidelines—such as taking care of personal well-being by eating healthily and exercising—when they are overly stressed. Furthermore, most research into stress overload suggests that the overload is usually caused by work-situational rather than personal factors. Stress overload can bring on exhaustion, which can eventually lead to serious outcomes, such as burnout, which is characterized by cynicism, a loss of capacity for empathy, and loss of a sense of professional accomplishment and organizational commitment (Freudenberger 1974; Thomas and Lankau 2009). Once workers are burned out, merely taking a break does not suffice, and recovery can take a long time. This is why the prevention of burnout, with its costly impacts on workers, service users, and organizations, is so important. Causes of burnout include work overload, lack of control over role-related decisions (being microman-aged), clashes of personal and professional values with organizational values, lack of collegial support, lack of a sense of being respected and treated fairly, and lack of rewards (Maslach and Leiter 1997).

When workers understand that it is overload and lack of support rather than personal failings that lead to exhaustion, they can find it easier to speak out about the impacts of stress on their functioning. Identifying the causes of stress overload helps workers to raise issues, such as concerns about workload. Social workers have found it is helpful to do this with supervisors, who act as professional sounding boards and development coaches, as well as with colleagues and managers. Team support has been shown to enhance job sat-isfaction and to provide a buffer against burnout (Kyonne 2007; Lasalvia et al. 2009). Speaking with colleagues who are experiencing similar workplace problems can assist in the building of constructive cases for interventions. Workload scoping and audits are means by which collective concerns can be addressed. Although funding issues may continue to impact on workloads,

Page 158: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Stress and Violence in the Workplace: theory and Practice ● 145

just knowing that overload is not a personal failing and that colleagues and supervisors are supportive can help workers to externalize what might other-wise appear to be personal shortcomings.

Work-life conflict increases the stress experienced by employees (Kelly et al. 2014). Allen and Armstrong (2006) identified a link between work-family conflict and the physical and mental health of workers. Increasing workers’ control of their schedules while also educating supervisors to provide more support for workers around their family and personal lives has been shown to decrease stress (Kelly et al. 2014). These findings fit with the observations of other authors, such as Schwartz, Gomes, and McCarthy (2011), who noted that expecting workers to work more and faster is not conducive to wellness in the workplace. Rather, a workplace that is respectful of human needs supports the health of both the worker and the organization.

Stressful Situations in the Workplace

Human service practitioners with social science backgrounds tend to have complex perspectives on social dynamics. They can see multiple potential inten-tions and contexts that might lie behind family problems, policy decisions, and workplace conflicts. They often empathize with multiple stakeholders, and they can foresee negative outcomes entangled with positive ones. This mul-tiplicity of perspectives applies also to the practitioners’ views on their own work situations.

Although there are no perfect solutions, doing nothing or continuing to merely observe a situation is not an option for most human service workers, including when the situation is their own workplace stress. Social work researchers and practitioners have contributed to the development of intervention measures that can help workers move beyond analysis to amelio-rating the impacts of dealing with trauma, workplace incivility and bullying, and oppressive organizational processes and practices.

The Impact of Encounters with Client Trauma

When educators and seasoned practitioners prepare beginning workers for the emotional impacts of work, and when beginning workers are given time to process these impacts, this goes a long way toward preventing sadness or shock from turning into traumatic stress reactions. It is reassuring for workers to know that it is normal to feel affected by the stories, sights, and sounds of other people’s emotional or physical pain. Office-based workers are some-times caught by surprise when they discover that even reading about people’s misfortunes, for example in insurance claims, can make an impact (Ludick,

Page 159: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

146 ● Kate van Heugten and Cathryne L. Schmitz

Alexander, and Carmichael 2007). It can also be difficult for workers to harness their emotions when applying regulations or delivering outcomes that they know are unwanted by service users. It is not always possible to provide the assistance people seek, and sometimes workers need to take actions that over-rule the wishes of service users; this is especially common in the areas of child welfare, criminal justice, and mental health.

Workers often have to make value-laden decisions, and they sometimes encounter difficult ethical dilemmas that require them to make choices from among imperfect options. Chapter 3 addresses how human service workers can work through such dilemmas. There is a separate issue, however, and that is the moral distress that can result from having to make these difficult deci-sions (Austin et al. 2005; Ulrich, Hamric, and Grady 2010). The frequency with which these ethical dilemmas occur may be increasing across the human services. For example, technological health innovations are costly, and public funding does not cover interventions for all people who might benefit from them. In another example, megadisasters, such as pandemics or disasters that radioactively contaminate the environment, can put workers in the unenvi-able position of having to choose between their own well-being and that of service users (van Heugten 2014). The distress of workers during and after encountering such dilemmas can be so severe that they develop depression and anxiety disorders. When workers are distressed to that extent, they can find it difficult to make peace with their actions and to appropriately process their memories. This can be especially difficult when workers identify with service users because of shared demographics or similarities in traumatic life experi-ences or because the workers are living and working in the same degraded environment as service users (Tosone, McTighe, and Bauwens 2014).

Social work authors emphasize the importance of education that recog-nizes the complex nature of ethical decision making in practice, rather than presenting simplistic rules or codes that are difficult to apply in real-life situ-ations (Banks 2008; see chapter 3, which discusses ethical decision making). By modeling self-care and balancing of workloads, supportive colleagues and supervisors, who have experience in dealing with traumatic incidents and difficult ethical dilemmas and who recognize the taxing emotional labor involved, can help new graduates entering practice to avoid early burn-out (van Heugten 2011a). Sometimes workers require counseling support; cognitive and mindfulness approaches are among those that are helpful and nonpathologizing (Rothschild and Rand 2006; van Heugten 2011a).

Close Encounters with Workplace Violence

Other difficult situations that social science graduates can encounter, and to which social workers have given a significant amount of thought and input,

Page 160: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Stress and Violence in the Workplace: theory and Practice ● 147

involve forms of workplace violence. Until recently, the literature on all kinds of workplace violence has tended to focus on finding causes in people, some-what simplistically blaming aggressive or mentally ill clients, inept or aggressive managers, neurotic workers, or victims who brought it on themselves (van Heugten 2011a). More recently, attention has turned to the situations, set-tings, and wider social contexts in which violence arises. This socioecological perspective has highlighted the relevance of relationships of power. It has, for example, drawn attention to the multiple connections that might exist between experiences or perceptions of incivility and bullying, organizational structures and systems of power, and pressures arising from organizational change.

Workplace abuse from colleagues, hierarchical superiors, and subordinates is present in most organizations in one form or another, as recent research has highlighted. The psychological, social, and financial costs of this violence are also receiving increased exposure (Koonin and Green 2004). The continuum of organizational violence runs from verbal abuse and social exclusion to harassment to physical violence. Workplace violence of any kind creates high levels of stress for individuals and teams. When high stress levels continue for a significant period of time, they can negatively impact workers’ health and well-being (Leka and Jain 2010), impair team communications, and hinder networked care for service users (van Heugten 2011a).

Workplace Violence as a Structural ProblemWorkplace violence can best be understood and assessed within a sys-temic context (Braverman 2004); social workers use ecological perspectives (explained in chapter 2) to help them do this. Some of the organizational features that contribute to the development of abusive dynamics are pressure to conform, the valuing of compliance over discussion, organizational toler-ance of abusive behaviors, problematic communication, power imbalances, and lack of supportive interpersonal relationships (Duffy and Sperry 2014). The consequences are destructive, and the impacts on workers, organiza-tions, and society are negative. It is within this broader understanding of workplace violence as a structural violence problem that we now consider bullying and mobbing before considering approaches to achieving positive organizational change.

Bullying and MobbingBullying and mobbing are forms of organizational violence that impact both the organization and the physical, psychological, and emotional well-being of those targeted (Sloan et al. 2010). The terms are sometimes used interchange-ably, but here we will discuss them as distinctly different in their form and impact. Bullying within the workplace is a form of aggression in which one individual directly targets another, in order to hurt the other person or that

Page 161: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

148 ● Kate van Heugten and Cathryne L. Schmitz

person’s position in the organization (Lutgen-Sandvik, Namie, and Namie 2009). It involves repeated mistreatment through verbal abuse, offensive con-duct, or violent verbal and nonverbal behavior; it results in the harming of an individual, perhaps even driving him or her from the organization. These actions are threatening, humiliating, or intimidating, and they interfere with the employee’s ability to complete their work (Lutgen-Sandvik, Namie, and Namie 2009). Bystanders also become distressed, yet they typically remain silent, both because they worry about attracting negative attention to themselves and because they fear that they might worsen the situation for the victim (van Heugten 2011b). There has been much less research on the people who have been accused of bullying, but they too may suffer ill health in the aftermath (Jenkins, Winefield, and Sarris 2011).

Mobbing, on the other hand, involves a process through which one per-son uses rumor and innuendo to draw together multiple people who are then engaged in a group form of bullying. It is destructive at the individual, group, and organizational levels. It can destroy the credibility and reputation of the target. Weaknesses in organizational structures and systems allow mobbing to take place and allow perpetrators to take advantage of problematic commu-nication patterns and difficult interpersonal relationships. Mobbing may be tolerated or even covertly condoned in an oppressive workplace (Duffy and Sperry 2012, 2014). Mobbing is complex; it is embedded in multilayer interac-tions among structures and people, and achieving change requires engagement across those multiple organizational layers.

Some researchers have found that autocratic and laissez-faire styles of leadership may be more likely to support bullying or mobbing (Hoel et al. 2010). Namie and Namie (2011) have suggested that a highly structured, hierarchical organization with an autocratic leadership style is more likely to create the intensely competitive context in which bullying behavior thrives. They have suggested that a laissez-faire style of leadership, on the other hand, leaves a leadership vacuum that may be conducive to mobbing. Bullying is more likely to take place from manager to frontline worker, supervisor to supervisee, or peer to peer, whereas mobbing may additionally be directed from supervisees to supervisors or from frontline workers to managers (Namie and Namie 2009; Sloan et al. 2010).

Because mobbing has not been as extensively covered as bullying in writings on workplace violence, we will discuss it here in more detail. Mob-bing may involve the creation of derogatory rumors and innuendo, processes that isolate and shame their targets, impacting their physical and mental health, professional identity, and employment or employability (Duffy and Sperry 2014; Sloan et al. 2010). It is a process that relies on organizational com-plicity. Because others in the organization are drawn into the group process as

Page 162: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Stress and Violence in the Workplace: theory and Practice ● 149

bystanders, many workers within the organization are impacted individually and interpersonally. “Key organizational members become involved in mobbing through overt or covert actions against a target or through failure to act to protect organizational members from abuse” (Duffy and Sperry 2014, 8). This compounds and confuses the organizational impact; as a result, mobbing can be insidious in its consequences, both for the person targeted and for the orga-nization (Duffy and Sperry 2014).

Mobbing occurs as a consequence of systemic and structural inadequacies. It creates a tense and hostile environment, increasing the levels of stress and thereby contributing to an even more hostile work environment. The vio-lence of mobbing has direct and indirect costs for the organization (Koonin and Green 2004; Sloan et al. 2010), including high employee turnover, low workforce morale, and decreased productivity. Mobbing creates personal, interpersonal, and organizational conflict. Those who observe mobbing, like bystanders to bullying, experience guilt, stress, and feelings of insecurity (Duffy and Sperry 2014).

Current Approaches to Interventions in Workplace ViolenceWorkplace violence, including bullying and mobbing, involves institutionalized dynamics that are often accepted and ignored as the price of being financially competitive and efficient, and having go-getting workers and organizations. Companies consequently focus on positions and promotions instead of human needs and relationships. Research by Namie and Namie (2009, 316) found that “employers predominantly did nothing to stop the mistreatment when reported (53%) and actually retaliated against the person (71% of cases) who dared to report it.”

Current approaches to intervention regarding workplace bullying and mob-bing largely ignore structural issues and power dynamics. Despite evidence that shows the ineffectiveness of models such as mediation, negotiation, and the use of outside consultants for “team building,” few approaches move beyond these one-dimensional interventions. Such narrow, short-term models do not produce lasting change without simultaneous intervention at multiple levels (Ramsbotham, Woodhouse, and Miall 2011). Human resource models focus primarily on developing solutions designed to facilitate agreement between the “two parties” and thus avoid legal action (Namie and Namie 2011). Little is done to validate and redress the harm and to prevent future incidents. These measures focus on bullying and mobbing as solely interpersonal problems. For any approach to effectively address abuse and aggression in the workplace, it must look at the multiple layers of the conflict.

Attempts to transform conflicts through mediation and negotiation are only effective when the needs, interests, and positions of all parties are equally

Page 163: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

150 ● Kate van Heugten and Cathryne L. Schmitz

represented. Because bullying and mobbing make a target feel inferior, a power imbalance exists between the target, the perpetrator(s), and the other members of the organization. This precludes a fair and just representation of the parties in the mediation sessions, as well as those persons outside the pro-cess (Namie and Namie 2011). Furthermore, the confidential nature of the process means that other members of the organization are excluded and that the damage being caused by organizational structures and systems is able to be ignored. Because of this lack of transparency, there is no remediation for the group and no intervention at the organizational level. There is therefore no base for creating meaningful change (Namie and Namie 2011).

More recently, attention has begun to be paid to social interventions that target the organizational cultures and practices that have enabled incivility and lack of care for worker well-being (Rhodes et al. 2010). Whole-of-organization approaches include changing the organizational environment, engaging the leadership in establishing a culture of change (Sloan et al. 2010), and bystander training (van Heugten 2011b). As leaders become aware of the dynamics, they can play a role sensitizing others in the organization (Braverman 2004; Koonin and Green 2004). In bystander training, colleagues are encouraged to identify oppressive behaviors and their impacts and are taught how they might safely take a collective stand against inappropriate or abusive behaviors (Scully and Rowe 2009; van Heugten 2011b).

Stopping the violence is only the first step. Interpersonal remediation is important. At the interpersonal levels, the target, the bystanders, and those accidently drawn into the mobbing dynamics must be included in processes of healing, rebuilding relationships, and fostering more collaborative work-place interactions (Duffy and Sperry 2014). Less has been written on how to effectively engage the bully or mobber. Those seeding the violence cannot just be moved to another organizational role or location; they must be provided with a process that offers them the chance to join in a change process toward building a healthier organizational culture.

When organizational structures do not support their employees’ human needs, the organizations are vulnerable to creating environments that support structural violence. An overemphasis on strict definitions of bullying obscures how ideas about violence are constructed to blame individuals rather than workplace processes (Liefooghe and Mackenzie Davey 2010). By expanding definitions to include mobbing and by focusing on structural factors that encourage and support these behaviors, an organization can begin to reform its structures away from those that promote systemic violence. When researchers listen to what people have to say about their experiences of workplace aggres-sion, researchers can begin to notice the impact of oppressive workplace prac-tices. These impacts fall not only on traditionally identified targets but also

Page 164: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Stress and Violence in the Workplace: theory and Practice ● 151

sometimes on managers who are required to implement workplace policies with which they do not necessarily agree. When we stop focusing on measur-ing whether bullying and mobbing can be proved to have occurred according to definitional criteria, we can begin to take note of how organizational power struggles lead to workers’ distress, in a neoliberal output-oriented context that is antithetical to occupations that consider caring their mission (Hutchinson et al. 2010; Social Work Task Force 2009; van Heugten 2011a). When workers and managers begin to identify the resulting damage to individual, team, and organizational well-being, they can take a step back to consider more inclusive practices (van Heugten, Kelly, and Stanley 2013).

Achieving Positive Organizational Change

Just as organizations need the energy, talents, and ideas of people, people also need organizations—not only to meet their basic survival needs but also to fulfill their need to belong and contribute in a meaningful way. If the fit is poor between the organization and the individuals in the organization, problems arise, and one or both suffer. When the fit is good, individuals can thrive, and organizations have the talent and energy they need (Bolman and Deal 2013).

Effective transformation of an organization away from violence requires changes in the organization’s structures and systems. If those in leadership positions want to stop workplace violence, they need to be actively engaged and vigilant. Structural change also requires training on interventions that disrupt workplace violence at all organizational levels, including managers and others in leadership roles (Koonin and Green 2004), the development of high-level communication skills, the implementation of mechanisms for increasing participation and interaction, and the establishment of a culture that values rather than denies differences of opinion. Open channels of communication require a willingness to listen to criticism and to welcome constructive feedback. Researchers have suggested that workplace cultures that emphasize mutual respect, rather than blaming and shaming approaches, are most likely to be supportive and violence-resistant (Bentley et al. 2009; Quine 1999). Organizations with flatter hierarchical structures, an open flow of communication, and systems for relationship and team building create an atmosphere conducive to the development of increased trust and higher morale (Lewin and Regine 2000). An organizational culture that treats employees with dignity and respect while establishing expectations of accountability and responsibility is more resistant to workplace violence, including mobbing and bullying. An environment that is inclusive, where people feel valued and purposeful, can have a positive impact on organizational community

Page 165: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

152 ● Kate van Heugten and Cathryne L. Schmitz

(Bolman and Deal 2013). This is facilitated by redesigning the environment so that people are encouraged to interact informally and across roles and hier-archies. For example, staff rooms where people can have tea and coffee breaks together and where they can prepare and share food can become gathering places for supportive conversations.

In an organization where open communication and mutual support are encouraged, difficult ethical decisions and traumatic work experiences do not have to be faced alone. Workers need to be able to talk about value conflicts and distressing experiences, whether small or large, with trusted colleagues and supervisors. This simple act of externalizing difficult but unavoidable encoun-ters is extremely helpful; social support is frequently all that is necessary to normalize, soften, and contextualize emotional responses (Dollard et al. 2003). Social workers have found that it is also extremely valuable to discuss, in sup-portive and reflective supervision, the more difficult practice situations that they encounter. The importance of providing such supervision is becoming better recognized across the wider human services (Davys and Beddoe 2010).

Unfortunately, collegial and supervisory support is not always readily avail-able. If a worker is being bullied or mobbed or is working in an environment that neglects to care for workers’ needs, he or she will need to consider where to seek support. That support may come from people within or outside the organization, including supervisors, mentors, lawyers, unions, colleagues, friends, or family. Externally provided health audits and interventions can be more effective than internal processes. Even if workers ultimately decide to end their employment, sound advice has been found to assist them in achiev-ing better outcomes in the form of better exit packages and in maintaining self-confidence as they work through their options (van Heugten 2011a).

Conclusion

Difficult and challenging work situations are common in human services because of the nature of the work that is undertaken. The challenges should not, however, be allowed to be exacerbated by unreasonable workloads, unre-lenting output-oriented managerial demands, or a lack of resources. Workers should not be subjected to bullying or mobbing in their workplaces nor to other forms of structural violence that may be difficult to name but insidi-ously detrimental. Although social workers have not necessarily found “answers” to such complex workplace problems, they have researched, theo-rized, and tested interventions, the most hopeful of which lie in the estab-lishment of supportive workplace cultures that feature open communication, shared decision making, and collective, nonshaming approaches to facing and resolving conflicts.

Page 166: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Stress and Violence in the Workplace: theory and Practice ● 153

Reflective Questions

1. Consider the various ways in which workplace stress (including stress in relation to study or paid employment) impacts you and people close to you. What approaches do you use to deal with stress overload?

2. Does identifying sources of stress (for example at a personal, organiza-tional, or political level) make a difference in how you might approach dealing with those experiences?

3. Have you experienced, observed, or been drawn into situations that involved workplace violence? Has this chapter provided you with dif-ferent ways of considering causes and approaches to workplace vio-lence? What interventions do you think might be helpfully applied to situations in which there is workplace violence?

References

Allen, Tammy D., and Jeremy Armstrong. 2006. “Further Examination of the Link between Work-Family Conflict and Physical Health: The Role of Health-Related Behaviors.” American Behavioral Scientist 49 (9): 1204–1221. doi:10.1177/00027 64206286386.

Austin, Wendy, Marlene Rankel, Leon Kagan, Vangie Bergum, and Gillian Lemermeyer. 2005. “To Stay or To Go, To Speak or Stay Silent, To Act or Not To Act: Moral Distress as Experienced by Psychologists.” Ethics and Behavior 15 (3): 197–212. doi:10.1207/s15327019eb1503.

Banks, Sarah. 2008. “Critical Commentary: Social Work Ethics.” British Journal of Social Work 38 (6): 1238–1249. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcn099.

Bentley, Tim, Bevan Catley, Helena Cooper-Thomas, Dianne Gardner, Michael O’Driscoll, and Linda Trenberth. 2009. Understanding Stress and Bullying in New Zealand Workplaces: Final Report to OH&S Steering Committee. Wellington: Health Research Council/New Zealand Department of Labour. http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Massey%20News/2010/04/docs/Bentley-et-al-report.pdf.

Bolman, Lee, and Terrence Deal. 2013. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. 5th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Braverman, Mark. 2004. “Abuse and Violence in the Workplace and School: Toward a Systems-Based Model.” In Aggression in Organizations: Violence, Abuse, and Harass-ment at Work and in Schools, edited by Robert Geffner, Mark Braverman, Joseph Galasso, and Janessa Marsh, 1–11. Binghamton, NY: Hayworth Maltreatment and Trauma Press.

Davys, Allyson, and Liz Beddoe. 2010. Best Practice in Professional Supervision: A Guide for the Helping Professions. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Dhabhar, Firdaus S. 2009. “A Hassle a Day May Keep the Pathogens Away: The Fight-or-Flight Stress Response and the Augmentation of Immune Func-tion.” Integrative and Comparative Biology 49 (3): 215–236. doi:10.1093/icb/icp045.

Page 167: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

154 ● Kate van Heugten and Cathryne L. Schmitz

Dollard, Maureen F., Christian Dormann, Carolyn M. Boyd, Helen R. Winefield, and Anthony H. Winefield. 2003. “Unique Aspects of Stress in Human Service Work.” Australian Psychologist 38 (2): 84–91. doi:10.1080/00050060310001707087.

Duffy, Maureen, and Len Sperry. 2012. Mobbing: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions. New York: Oxford University Press.

———. 2014. Overcoming Mobbing: A Recovery Guide for Workplace Aggression and Bullying. New York: Oxford University Press.

French, John R. P., Robert D. Caplan, and R. Van Harrison. 1982. The Mechanisms of Job Stress and Strain. New York: Wiley.

Freudenberger, Herbert J. 1974. “Staff Burn-Out.” Journal of Social Issues 30 (1): 159–165. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1974.tb00706.x.

Hoel, Helge, Lars Glasø, Jørn Hetland, Cary L. Cooper, and Ståle Einarsen. 2010. “Leadership Styles as Predictors of Self-Reported and Observed Work-place Bullying.” British Journal of Management 21 (2): 453–468. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-8551.2009.00664.x.

Hunter, Sally V., and Margot J. Schofield. 2006. “How Counsellors Cope with Traumatized Clients: Personal, Professional and Organizational Strategies.” International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling 28 (2): 121–138. doi:10.1007/s10447-005-9003-0.

Hutchinson, Marie, Margaret H. Vickers, Debra Jackson, and Lesley Wilkes. 2010. “Bullying as Circuits of Power: An Australian Nursing Perspective.” Administrative Theory and Praxis 32 (1): 25–47. doi:10.2753/ATP1084-1806320102.

Jenkins, Moira, Helen Winefield, and Aspa Sarris. 2011. “Consequences of Being Accused of Workplace Bullying: An Exploratory Study.” International Journal of Workplace Health Management 4 (1): 33–47. doi:10.1108/17538351111118581.

Karasek, Robert A., and Töres Theorell. 1990. Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity, and the Reconstruction of Working Life. New York: Basic Books.

Kelly, Erin, Phyllis Moen, J. Michael Oakes, Wen Fan, Cassandra Okechukwu, Kelly Davis, Leslie Hammer, et al. 2014. “Changing Work and Work-Family Conflict: Evidence from the Work, Family, and Health Network.” American Sociological Review 79 (3): 485–516. doi:10.1177/0003122414531435.

Koonin, Michelle, and Thomas Green. 2004. “The Emotionally Abusive Workplace.” In Aggression in Organizations: Violence, Abuse, and Harassment at Work and in Schools, edited by Robert Geffner, Mark Braverman, Joseph Galasso, and Janessa Marsh, 71–79. Binghamton, NY: Hayworth Maltreatment and Trauma Press.

Kyonne, Jinman. 2007. The Role of Teamwork in Public Child Welfare Caseworkers’ Intentions to Leave. PhD diss., Social Work, University of Missouri, Columbia.

Landy, Frank J., and Jeffrey M. Conte. 2007. Work in the 21st Century: An Introduc-tion to Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.

Lasalvia, Antonio, Lorenza Lazzarotto, Vanna Marangon, Idana Morandin, Maria Zucchetto, Michele Tansella, Mirella Ruggeri, et al. 2009. “Influence of Per-ceived Organisational Factors on Job Burnout: Survey of Community Mental Health Staff.” The British Journal of Psychiatry 195 (6): 537–544. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.108.060871.

Page 168: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Stress and Violence in the Workplace: theory and Practice ● 155

Leka, Stavroula, and Aditya Jain. 2010. Health Impact of Psychosocial Hazards at Work: An Overview. Geneva: World Health Organization. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241500272_eng.pdf.

Lewin, Roger, and Birute Regine. 2000. The Soul at Work: Embracing Complexity Science for Business Success. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Liefooghe, Andreas, and Kate Mackenzie Davey. 2010. “The Language and Organization of Bullying at Work.” Administrative Theory and Praxis 32 (1): 71–95. doi:10.2753/ATP1084-1806320104.

Littlechild, Brian. 2005. “The Stresses Arising from Violence, Threats and Aggression against Child Protection Social Workers.” Journal of Social Work 5 (1): 61–82. doi:10.1177/1468017305051240.

Lowe, Tony B., and Wynne S. Korr. 2007. “Workplace Safety Policies in Mental Health Settings.” Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health 22 (4): 29–47. doi: 10.1080/15555240802157130.

Ludick, Marné, Daleen Alexander, and Teresa Carmichael. 2007. “Vicarious Trauma-tisation: Secondary Traumatic Stress Levels in Claims Workers in the Short-Term Insurance Industry in South Africa.” Problems and Perspectives in Management 5 (3): 99–110. http://businessperspectives.org/component/option,com_journals/task,journal/ id,3/Itemid,74/.

Lutgen-Sandvik, Pamela, Gary Namie, and Ruth Namie. 2009. “Workplace Bullying: Causes, Consequences, and Corrections.” In Destructive Organizational Communi-cation: Processes, Consequences, and Constructive Ways of Organizing, edited by Pamela Lutgen-Sandvik and Beverly Davenport Sypher, 27–52. New York: Routledge.

Maslach, Christina, and Michael P. Leiter. 1997. The Truth about Burnout: How Organizations Cause Personal Stress and What to Do About It. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McCann, I. Lisa, and Laurie A. Pearlman. 1990. “Vicarious Traumatization: A Frame-work for Understanding the Psychological Effects of Working with Victims.” Journal of Traumatic Stress 3 (1): 131–149. doi:10.1007/BF00975140.

Namie, Gary, and Ruth Namie. 2009. The Bully at Work: What You Can Do to Stop the Hurt and Reclaim Your Dignity on the Job. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks.

———. 2011. The Bully-Free Workplace: Stop Jerks, Weasels, and Snakes from Killing Your Organization. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

Quine, Lyn. 1999. “Workplace Bullying in NHS Community Trust: Staff Question-naire Survey.” British Medical Journal 318 (7178): 228–232. doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7178.228.

Ramsbotham, Oliver, Tom Woodhouse, and Hugh Miall. 2011. Contemporary Conflict Resolution. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Rhodes, Carl, Alison Pullen, Margaret H. Vickers, Stewart R. Clegg, and Alexandra Pitsis. 2010. “Violence and Workplace Bullying: What Are an Organization’s Ethical Responsibilities?” Administrative Theory and Praxis 32 (1): 96–115. doi: 10.2753/ATP1084-1806320105.

Rothschild, Babette, and Marjorie L. Rand. 2006. Help for the Helper: The Psycho-physiology of Compassion Fatigue and Vicarious Trauma. New York: W. W. Norton.

Page 169: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

156 ● Kate van Heugten and Cathryne L. Schmitz

Schwartz, Tony, Jean Gomes, and Catherine McCarthy. 2011. Be Excellent at Any-thing: Four Keys toTransforming the Way We Work and Live. New York: Free Press.

Scully, Maureen, and Mary Rowe. 2009. “Bystander Training within Organisations.” Journal of the International Ombudsman Association 2 (1): 1–9. http://www.ombuds association.org/Resources/IOA-Publications/IOA-Journal.aspx.

Selye, Hans. [1956] 1976. The Stress of Life. New York: McGrawHill.Sloan, Lacey M., Tom Matyok, Cathryne L. Schmitz, and Glenda Short. 2010. “A

Story to Tell: The Cost of Bullying and Mobbing in the Workplace.” International Journal of Business and Social Science 1 (3): 87–96. http://www.ijbssnet.com/.

Social Work Task Force. 2009. Building a Safe, Confident Future. London: Social Work Task Force. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/01114-2009DOM-EN.pdf.

Thomas, Christopher H., and Melenie J. Lankau. 2009.“Preventing Burnout: The Effects of LMX and Mentoring on Socialization, Role Stress, and Burnout.” Human Resource Management 48 (3): 417–432. doi:10.1002/hrm.20288.

Tosone, Carol, John P. McTighe, and Jennifer Bauwens. 2014. “Shared Traumatic Stress among Social Workers in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.” British Journal of Social Work. Published electronically January 12, 2014. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bct194.

Ulrich, Connie M., Ann B. Hamric, and Christine Grady. 2010. “Moral Distress: A Growing Problem in the Health Professions?” Hastings Center Report 40 (1): 20–22. doi:10.1353/hcr.0.0222.

van Heugten, Kate. 2011a. Social Work under Pressure: How to Overcome Stress, Fatigue and Burnout in the Workplace. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

———. 2011b. “Theorizing Active Bystanders as Change Agents in Workplace Bullying of Social Workers” Families in Society 92 (2): 219–224. doi:10.1606/1044-3894.4090.

———. 2014. Human Service Organizations in the Disaster Context. New York: Pal-grave Macmillan.

van Heugten, Kate, Stephanie Kelly, and Tony Stanley. 2013. “Taking a Sociological Approach to Oppression in the Neoliberal Human Services Workplace.” Paper presented at the International Conference on Sociology and Social Work: The Interaction between Sociology and Social Work: Creativity, Cooperation and Knowledge. Aalborg University, Denmark.

Zapf, Dieter, Jordi Escartin, Ståle Einarsen, Helge Hoel, and Maarit A. Vartia. 2011. “Empirical Findings on Prevalence and Risk Groups of Bullying in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research and Practice.” In Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research and Practice, edited by Ståle Ein-arsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper, 75–105. London: Taylor and Francis.

Page 170: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

CHAPtEr 9

Facilitating research Mindedness in a Sociology research

Internship Course

Martin Tolich

Introduction

A major difference between traditional social work education and sociology is the educational setting. Sociologists have tended to teach their students within a classroom setting. Social work educators, by contrast, have traditionally engaged their students in the application of knowledge in practice through placements in social work agencies, in addition to classroom based learning. The sociology internship course described in this chapter enacts an approach traditionally used in social work education, by placing its students in the community to conduct a small research project. This is a change in direction for sociology teaching and represents something akin to what Burawoy (2005) called a public sociology, transcending the traditional academic focus on “professional sociology.” In his presidential address to the American Sociological Association, Burawoy noted the “growing gap between the [professional] sociological ethos and the world we study” (Burawoy 2005, 7). Cook (2011, 7) operationalized “public sociology” as a public good, stating, “By taking the knowledge, skills, and techniques of good sociological research, we can improve our communities and help generate a stronger foundation and enhance everyone’s quality of life.” Public sociology and internships have a natural synergy, as sociology students who participate in community-based research gain a greater proficiency in undertaking the entire research process (Bach and Weinzimmer 2011).

Another area in which sociology can learn from social work is the latter’s focus on research mindedness, which promotes the integration of research

Page 171: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

158 ● Martin tolich

and practice. A definition of research mindedness was derived from working papers produced in 1995 and 1997 for the Central Committee for Education and Training in Social Work (quoted in Research Mindedness for Social Work and Social Care 2002, 95):

[Research mindedness is] a faculty for critical reflection informed by knowledge and research; an ability to use research to inform practice which counters unfair discrimination, racism, poverty, disadvantage and injustice, consistent with core social work values; an understanding of the process of research and the use of research to theorise from practice.

This chapter discusses the attempts by the author, a sociology lecturer at the University of Otago in New Zealand, to instill research minded-ness within his students. The chapter examines the experiences of final-year undergraduate sociology students enrolled in a research methods intern-ship class in which students worked in small groups (two to three persons), researching a community project for a client. The students’ goal was to pro-duce a written report, a pamphlet, a poster, or a video for their client during the 12-week semester. The course was taught for three years; after each year the course outcomes were analyzed in comparison with course objectives (Tolich 2012; Tolich, Paris, and Shephard 2014). After each year’s analysis, the course was modified to make it more student-centered. The increas-ingly autonomous learning environment led to noticeable advances in the development of students’ research mindedness and their self-identification as researchers.

The rest of this chapter discusses various aspects of the course over the three years it was taught. First, motivations behind course design are described, along with the reasons an experiential learning frame was chosen. The course structure ensured that, although the students often stumbled, they were able to regain their footing. The next section documents the initial course setup, including gaining preapproval for all five research sites. Although preapproval and other scaffolding supported and guided the students, this essentially led them to an overly controlled research process. Next, the course’s evolution over the three years is discussed. In each successive year, more of the support-ive scaffolding was dismantled, leading the students to partake in something more akin to the kind of independent research that they might undertake as an entry-level policy analyst with a nongovernment agency or a government department. The students’ experiential learning is then described, including their experiences of fear as they responded to their first encounter with doing research for a real client. Finally, the students’ own descriptions of the intern-ship course are provided, including their perceptions of how the course differed

Page 172: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Facilitating research Mindedness ● 159

from the intermediate research methods course that all of the students had completed in the previous year. One astute student, reflecting on the inter-mediate research methods course and the internship course, described the intermediate research methods course as preschool and the internship as elementary school. Students did not, through this course, become competent researchers capable of independent research akin to the holder of a PhD or a lecturer. They did, however, become research minded, and they came to view themselves as researchers.

Course Motivation and Design

The internship course was developed in response to the observation that sociology students are systematically disadvantaged in comparison with social work students, in that sociology students have fewer vocational options. Social work students start their university studies expecting that, in three or four years’ time, they will become qualified social workers. That pathway is very clear. Moreover, during their third and/or fourth year of education, in New Zealand as in many other countries, social work students spend up to 120 days in internship placements, which somewhat cements this path. For sociology students, the pathways are not as clear. In the book, Great Jobs for Sociology Majors, Lambert (2008) listed five pathways that sociology students can follow: into teaching, into human services, into human resource management, into public employment, or into research. (While the internship course described in this chapter focuses on research, it positions research not as a job destination but rather as an integral part of any job in the social sciences or human services). Typically, sociology stu-dents are told that there are multiple job destinations out there and that the potential is limitless. How to get those jobs, however, and the routes toward them, are not made clear in any of the key sociological texts, including The Sociological Imagination (Mills 2000) or Invitation to Sociology: A Humanis-tic Perspective (Berger 1963).

The American Sociological Association website (2014) illustrated how sociology graduates are promised limitless employment destinations:

Employers today want to hire people who have creativity, innovation, and criti-cal thinking skills. They want to hire people who have multi-cultural and global understandings, strong math and science skills, and excellent written expres-sion. Studying sociology has helped you gain the skills you need.

Some other sites describe skill attainment as well as destinations, but it may nevertheless be unclear to students how these are linked. As an example,

Page 173: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

160 ● Martin tolich

the website (2014) of New Zealand’s Victoria University of Wellington, in the section titled “What can I do with a degree in sociology,” stated:

In an increasingly diverse labour market, the ability of Sociology graduates to understand social differences in human relationships lead them to meaningful careers in public policy, community and social services and law enforcement. In addition, Sociology students gain competence in the use of theoretical and scientific methods of research to investigate the social world by collecting, evaluating and disseminating empirical research findings. These skills prepare students for various research and analyst positions in the public, private and non-profit sector where they can conduct surveys, analyze census data or engage in participatory research.

The research methods internship course at the University of Otago was intended to assist students in making connections between skills and theo-ries learned in the classroom and entry-level employment. The students were specifically prepared for an entry-level policy analyst position. Additionally, because the expectation was that students would be working in a team rather than as independent researchers once they gained employment, the course enabled students to develop collaboration and other teamwork skills that are important in other careers. The course developed dual discourses; one thread comprised the four parts of the overall assignment: the literature review, the construction of a research instrument, the data collection and analysis, and the final output. The other thread focused on what Kuh (2008) called “experiential learning.” Kuh (2008, 25) noted that experiential learning is well established pedagogically: “Students who are involved in educationally productive activi-ties in college are developing habits of the mind and heart that enlarge their capacity for continuous learning and personal development.”

Experiential learning is an important thread, but Bandura (1997) warned that the experience comes to nothing if it does not also enhance the students’ confidence. Quinney and Parker (2010, 3) elaborated:

For instance, a student who has read widely and assimilates knowledge con-cerning qualitative research methods may articulate this well in the class-room and may indeed be at an advantage to someone who has not undertaken such prior study. However, if the student does not have a strong self-belief that she is able to read and critically appraise a piece of qualitative research or execute the actions necessary to develop a qualitative research proposal, she is not likely to succeed in applying that knowledge.

The internship was designed to allow students to experience both the highs and the lows of conducting research, while enhancing their sense of

Page 174: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Facilitating research Mindedness ● 161

self-confidence. Students had to take responsibility for multiple roles: the student, the ethical researcher, the team member, the representative of the university, and the “expert” who had knowledge that people respect. Each year, based on increased understanding of the students and the tasks undertaken, parts of the scaffolding that had been set up to support the students were dismantled, thereby enabling their confidence in their own research abilities to grow.

Initial Course Design: Painting by Numbers

Months before the course commenced, five community organizations chose to be involved in the internship (Tolich et al. 2013):

● Dunedin City Libraries’ Mobile Library ● Otago Daily Times’ Dawn Patrol (young newspaper deliverers) ● Dunedin’s four food banks ● University of Otago’s Marine Science Outreach for gifted and talented

school children ● University of Otago’s Science Wānanga program for Māori high school

students (Wānanga is a Māori word that loosely translates to “place or system of learning.”)

The lecturer spoke with these clients, planned the research projects, and wrote ethics applications for each, outlining the entire project, including indicative interview questions. Ethics applications require that the research question be stated and the research instrument (such as a survey or an unstructured interview guide) be identified. A clear statement on the form of research output is also required. To ensure a safe experience, the course lecturer made many command decisions, such as whether the output should be a pamphlet, a poster, a video recording, or a written report. Previous expe-rience had indicated that some outputs, specifically video recordings, could be ethically problematic; the camera is said to add “ten pounds of ethics” (Sieber and Tolich 2013, 79). It was also anticipated that the ethics applica-tion could take some weeks to process, and avoidance of any delay was seen as important.

In hindsight, some of these processes used in the course’s first year, though well intentioned, were seen to be overcontrolling. The result was that the students were engaged in something akin to painting by numbers. They took part in research projects that were already commissioned, with all the com-plex decision making having been done prior to the first day of class. They missed out on the experience of teasing out the project with the client and

Page 175: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

162 ● Martin tolich

all the uncertainty involved in that process. They were denied the experience of writing up a research proposal for a client. Many of the tasks required to complete the ethics applications were skills they needed to acquire and should have been seen as essential components of their experiential learning. Many of the course benefits were undermined, and a great learning opportu-nity was missed.

Commencing project planning before the course began was found to have other detrimental effects. The predetermination of research design also excluded clients from the four stages of the project. For example, the litera-ture review written by the students was evaluated internally, with no expec-tation that it be shared with the client. This thinking, though again well intentioned (not wanting to burden the client with the internal machinations of the class), was pedagogically unsound. It also overlooked the interest that clients might have in the outcomes of the students’ work. A follow-up survey of the clients in 2012 (Tolich et al. 2013), after the first year of the course, found that clients were disappointed with the lack of opportunities provided to them to participate in and receive feedback about the project outcomes. Having signed up to be part of the students’ internship, they wanted to be more involved. They especially wanted to read the literature review on their topic, to see what information the students had gathered. One client was especially frank, saying that the literature review would have been more valu-able than all the other information the students gave her during the life of the project (Tolich et al. 2013). She also said that, had she been able to read the literature review, she could have forestalled the students’ unproductive pursuit of a red herring. This oversight—neglecting to ensure that literature reviews were provided to clients—was a missed opportunity in two ways. It not only denied clients access to important information; it also robbed the students of an experiential learning moment: the opportunity to be seen as learned scholars in the eyes of the client.

Dismantling the Scaffolding

For the second year of the course, several elements of the supportive scaffold-ing were dismantled. Ethics applications, rather than being written by the lecturer ahead of time, were written (still by the lecturer) during the course, after clients and students had agreed on the topic and, more important, once they had agreed on an output (a written report, a pamphlet, a video, or a poster). In many cases the projects were not deemed high risk, and the ethics application could be signed off overnight by the head of the sociology department. For the few high-risk projects that needed formal ethics review, applications were reviewed within a three-week time frame.

Page 176: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Facilitating research Mindedness ● 163

The second year of the course provided opportunities for students to take more responsibility for their projects. Students in that second year com-mented in their reflective journals that they were completing their projects not just for the lecturer or for the final grade but also for the community organization or client with whom they had worked. Students were clearly conscious of their accountability to their clients. For example, after they received critical feedback on a video they had created, one group of students reedited the video before giving it to the client. Another group of students, who had worked on a pamphlet in the area of intellectual disability, rewrote the pamphlet for their client after it had been critiqued and marked as a final course assignment.

In the third year, the lecturer stepped back further, taking a more relaxed attitude toward the class and further dismantling the scaffolding. In years one and two, all the research sites had been initiated and secured by the lecturer. In year three, some groups of students were allowed to choose their own topics or research sites. This redirection occurred in week one of the course, when the students individually met with the lecturer to discuss their research interests. During these 30-minute discussions, two students inde-pendently mentioned that they were employed as support workers to the same physically and intellectually disabled child and that they accompanied this child to a karate club for disabled children on Saturday mornings. They suggested that this would be a good site for research. Following this, the lead karate instructor was approached and agreed to participate in research with the students.

Another example illustrates the increased flexibility that was incorporated into the course in its third year. In the second week of the course, after all the groups had been formed, an additional student wanted to join the class. This was seen as having the potential to disrupt the developing micro work cul-ture, or what Fine (1979) defined as an idioculture, of any group she joined. The student described her interest in the topic of sexual violence toward women and her plans to research that topic in a subsequent honors degree. The local rape crisis center was contacted, and a project was initiated that the student could work on by herself.

More flexibility was also introduced around the outputs the students produced. Students made all final amendments to their final reports, rather than the final approval being with the lecturer, as had previously been the case. This refocus enhanced the students’ experience of being a researcher and helped them learn to cope with the frustrations that come with this role. It enabled students to be seen by their clients and themselves in the researcher role and to be held accountable for the project. Development of this account-ability was more important than the output that was actually produced. If

Page 177: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

164 ● Martin tolich

the students finished the course knowing how and why they could do the research project differently the next time, this would be an excellent outcome; they would have learned reflexivity and would have become truly research minded.

Experiential Learning: The Fear Factor

The experience of fear was a significant factor for most students in all three years that the course has been offered. The causes of the fear varied among students, and it was difficult to predict what fear would emerge for which student. Some found it difficult to work in teams, some were shy and found it difficult to approach a client, and some had difficulty with public speaking, which became evident when they were asked to report to the class each week. (One student’s fear of public speaking was so severe that he was referred to either the university’s student health center or the local Toastmasters Inter-national club. He chose the latter.) Many students found it difficult to be identified as a researcher representing the university.

The first fear that students commonly experienced was meeting the cli-ent, which some students found to be nerve-racking. Three students were overwhelmed when meeting 40 young mothers and their babies en masse for the first time; one student described it in her journal as “really intimidating,” and she asked herself why she was invading their space. It is notable, however, how fleeting this fear was for most. In the first of their four reflective jour-nals, many students remarked how scary it was to meet the client, but when asked about their experience a week later, none of them mentioned having felt afraid.

Some research groups met challenges along the way and spent consider-able time in a state of frustration, waiting for research subjects to sign up to take part in the project or trying to establish a time when all of the team could meet the client. Delays in research are inevitable, and “waiting” is an important skill for researchers to learn.

Attempts were made to ease the burden of uncertainty and fear. Breaking up the project into four different parts was helpful, as it meant that at any time students were looking only at one aspect of the project: the literature review, the research instrument, the data analysis, or the final presentation. When approached incrementally, these tasks were all manageable.

Working in teams was also ultimately stress relieving for the students. Some had never worked in teams before, and some found the expectation that they were to contribute to the team quite difficult. Nonetheless, stu-dents drew on each other’s different experiences and were supported by this. For example, some students were terrified at the prospect of doing

Page 178: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Facilitating research Mindedness ● 165

interviews, and others were not. For those who were fearful, observing someone else conducting an interview gave them the confidence that they could also conduct one.

The availability of the lecturer was a large factor in easing students’ fears. Students said that their greatest resource was their ability to email or see the lecturer when needed (Tolich, Paris, and Shephard 2014). He was often able to suggest solutions or find a different way of approaching people. For example, when students were unable to gain sufficient interview participants, the lecturer wrote a “professorial” email that brought a much better response rate than had the students’ email. He sat in on interviews when requested by a group whose 20-minute interviews were lasting only 4 minutes. He was able to help the students learn to allow silence in the interviews and thus elicit further responses—a learning experience that could not have been gained in the classroom.

Some students were overconfident and evinced no fear. This occasionally led to problems developing rapport with either the client or the research participants. In year one, a student entered the research site on the first day, went straight to the site manager, who was serving customers at the time, and asked about the site’s mission statement. This incident came close to ending that project. In subsequent years, students were taught to slow down and respectfully create rapport with clients before beginning data collection. At the outset of projects in year three, some groups of students were going to research sites to promote their questionnaires. It was suggested that they fol-low a process that began with developing rapport. Students were advised to first introduce themselves to potential research participants and to talk about their interest in this particular community group. In other words, they were to present their intentions so that potential participants could make fully informed decisions about whether to participate.

Research mindedness requires students to think about themselves as researchers in a variety of ways. As an integral aspect of conducting them-selves as professional researchers, students were required to develop a safety plan (Sieber and Tolich 2013). This could be as simple as making a phone call to another person, both before and after meeting a participant for an interview. Safety also entailed students thinking about what clothing they wore and how they comported themselves in public.

The role of the lecturer and the nature of the student-lecturer relationship in this course were unusual. The students spoke about their relationship with the lecturer as more like one with a mentor than like one with a lecturer. The lecturer allowed students to drop by his office without an appointment to talk about their project and any roadblocks encountered. Emails received a quick reply. Although in three years no student used this, the lecturer gave them

Page 179: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

166 ● Martin tolich

his home telephone number to ensure that any serious situation that might otherwise give rise to ethical concerns could receive urgent intervention.

Abstract Learning versus the Real World

Four weeks into the third year of the course, two assignments—the literature review and the students’ reflective journals—revealed evidence of research mindedness in the students’ behavior.

As had happened in the two previous years of the course, students’ work—in this case the literature review—was critiqued by the lecturer. This year, however, the students’ next step was noticeably different, in that many groups of students responded to the critique by improving their literature review. A number of groups’ literature review annotations were initially presented for grading in a pedestrian manner, with the reviewed works listed either alpha-betically or chronologically. The critique suggested instead some form of the-matic analysis. One example was a literature review on a community garden, for which the lecturer suggested themes organized around nutrition, commu-nity involvement, education, and so on, as this was likely be more useful to the client. In later classroom discussions, this group of students mentioned a sense of pride when presenting the revised literature review to their client. In previous years, it had taken the full 12 weeks of the semester for students to begin to exhibit this type of research mindedness. This earlier development, only four weeks into the course, is understood as primarily resulting from the dismantling of the supportive scaffolding, as described earlier.

The students in the third year of the class collectively gave their permission for the author to present and discuss their reflective journals in this chapter. To test the belief that students had begun to act autonomously and responsibly for their projects, students were asked to complete their second reflective journal by comparing the intermediate research methods course they had taken the previous year with this internship course. Both courses were taught by the same lecturer and had a similar format, with a literature review, creation of a research instrument, and a final report or product. The main difference was that the intermediate research methods course was abstract—a typical sociology course. The internship course, by contrast, involved working for a client—very dif-ferent from most sociological educational offerings. (It should be noted that the intermediate course provided important prior learning without which the students could not have engaged in the next level course. The internship course was intended not to replace that course but to build on that prior learning.)

In a nutshell, students’ journals characterized the internship course as being “real,” in comparison with the more abstract research methods course. They described the internship course as nonlinear, cyclical, somewhat vague, less structured, and mirroring real life in the ways it was constrained by finite

Page 180: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Facilitating research Mindedness ● 167

resources of time, money, and a practical final output. It involved learning on the job. The level of teamwork required was also mentioned as a major difference and was seen as both novel and rewarding.

The key words that students used to describe the internship course and its difference from the intermediate research methods course were “accountability” and, to a lesser extent, “responsibility.” The journal entries differentiated between what the lecturer wanted and what the client needed and showed an understand-ing that the client wanted something usable. Students had to negotiate their course requirements in a context where their overriding duty was to consider and respect the interests of clients. This focus embodied research mindedness.

The following excerpts from the students’ reflective journals are illustra-tive of both the real-life nature of the course and the sense of accountability:

While there feels like there is less of a workload in the internship class, it also feels more stressful because I am actually accountable to other people, includ-ing my client, my lecturer and my [study] partner—as well as the university itself.

The internship mirrors “real life.” We are tasked with meeting an actual client, deciphering their needs and what we can do to benefit their organization . . . Actual research is carried out in the internship rather than just theorized about and the final product that is produced will have real consequences for the rel-evant organization it is produced for.

The internship is non-linear in that we are not fixed as to what stage is next, we have to (and can only) move forward when we are able to do so, dependent on real life factors such as client availability and ethics approval.

In the [intermediate research methods course] I never had to fully think through the consequences of my actions because they were only theoretical. In the internship I am constantly required to think through what is actually a practical method of doing things, and I have to take into account things like cost, time, and ethics—these aspects of study were limitless in previous course because there was to be no practical application of the study. Overall, the internship feels like a much more real-life, work experience type class, where I am learning the practi-cal side of sociology, rather than the all theory based learning.

Some students saw the internship as the most enjoyable class they had taken. Equally, the journals reflected the fears they experienced. They used an array of adjectives to describe their engagement with the project: nerve-racking, uncomfortable, petrifying, character building, and humbling:

The consequences are much greater if something goes wrong. You are letting more people down. And in this sense the internship is a bit more challenging and scary.

Page 181: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

168 ● Martin tolich

The internship has been a very humbling experience. I have come to realize that things I thought I knew or thought I could do and say, could in actuality put the validity of my research into question. In the internship the consequences of my actions are not just reflected on me, but could affect my [study] partner, my client, and perhaps even our research participants as well.

The internship is petrifying because you are responsible for your three people—the lecturer, client, and partner. Maybe there is a fourth master as you also want to make a difference with your project for the community.

The source of the accountability was the three or four “masters” that this student referred to (above): the lecturer, the clients, the study partner, and the wider community. Students were especially inspired by this relationship with the wider community. They saw that they were connected to a public sociology, as they saw themselves having the potential to make a difference. One wrote, “The most important thing about the internship is that I actually feel like I am making a difference, with the possibility of helping the community.”

Students also noted the greater degree of independence that was demanded of them. This was challenging, but this also helped in the building of confidence:

Students are not directed on what to do by the lecturer but instead are expected to be a lot more independent in the approach they take to their work. Thus, the students themselves do most of the teaching and learning themselves.

This sole responsibility encourages you to put all effort into the project to reach your full potential, because you feel that if you succeed in this paper you have the basic knowledge and confidence to complete projects in the future.

As was described above in relation to the literature review, the reflective journals demonstrate that students in this third year of the course achieved a research mindedness after only four weeks that had previously taken the full 12 weeks of the semester. This rapid socialization into research mindedness was achieved because of the removal of much of the well-intentioned but ultimately counterproductive scaffolding that had initially been put in place to streamline the course.

Conclusion

The reflective process used throughout the internship course was very useful to the students because it enabled them to trace their personal milestones. These reflections produced insights into how to position this course in relation

Page 182: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Facilitating research Mindedness ● 169

not only to the previous intermediate research methods course but also to the real world. As noted in the opening paragraphs of this chapter, one student astutely saw the intermediate research methods course as preschool and this internship as elementary school. This student captured the stepping-stones of research and of how this course fitted into the students’ future learning. The students were certainly becoming research minded, but they were still some way from being fully fledged independent researchers.

Overall, the internship was experienced as real and not as an abstract or theoretical process. It built on the intermediate course with real-world experiences, where actions had implications for people and organizations. By dealing with the real world with good supports and accountability, students enhanced their skills and capacities for future employment.

The course lecturer also benefitted from his experiences in the course. Through his involvement with students’ projects, he was exposed to his own local community in ways that were personally challenging and sometimes overwhelming. He was pushed to an enhanced experiential understanding of public sociology; this can only serve to make him a better researcher.

Reflective Questions

1. How do you define research mindedness? Looking back, do you think you have experienced the development of progressive research mindedness up until the present time?

2. Can you identify and describe experiential turning points, being ex-periences that significantly promoted your development of research mindedness?

3. Can you identify key elements in these experiences that led to your development of increased research mindedness, such as realizing the practical impacts of your studies, the consequences of mistakes, or the encouragement of a mentor?

4. What steps can you take, and what resources do you think might assist you, to continue to develop your research mindedness?

References

Bach, Rebecca, and Julianne Weinzimmer. 2011. “Exploring the Benefits of Community-Based Research in a Sociology of Sexualities Course.” Teaching Sociology 39 (1): 57–72. doi:10.1177/0092055x10390647.

Bandura, Albert. 1977. “Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change.” Psychological Review 84 (2): 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191.

Berger, Peter L. 1963. Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective. New York: Anchor.

Page 183: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

170 ● Martin tolich

Burawoy, Michael. 2005. “For Public Sociology.” American Sociological Review 70 (1): 4–28. doi:10.1177/0896920507088162.

Cook, Kimberly J. 2011. “Presidential Address: Realizing the Promise of Sociology: Going Public and Enriching Community.” Sociation Today 9 (1): 7. http://www .ncsociology.org/journal/.

Fine, Gary Alan. 1987. With the Boys: Little League Baseball and Preadolescent Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kuh, George D. 2008. High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter. Association of American Colleges and Uni-versities. http://accreditation.ncsu.edu/sites/accreditation.ncsu.edu/files/Kuh_HighImpactActivities.pdf.

Lambert, Stephen. 2008. Great Jobs for Sociology Majors. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Mills, C. Wright. [1959] 2000. The Sociological Imagination. 40th anniversary ed.

New York: Oxford University Press.Quinney, Anne, and Jonathan Parker. 2010. “Developing Self Efficacy in Research

Skills: Becoming Research-Minded.” In The Outcomes of Social Work Education: Developing Evaluation Methods, edited by Hillary Burgess and John Carpenter, 16–25. Southampton, UK: Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Social Policy and Social Work.

“Research Mindedness for Social Work and Social Care.” 2002. European Journal of Social Work, 5 (1): 95–96. doi:10.1080/714052964.

Sieber, Joan, and Martin Tolich. 2013. Planning Ethically Responsible Research. 2nd ed. London: Sage.

Tolich, Martin. 2012. “My Eye-Opening Midnight Swim: An Outward Bound Autoethnography.” New Zealand Journal of Outdoor Education: Ko Tane Mahuta Pupuke 3 (1): 9–23. http://www.outdoorsnz.org.nz/resources/publications/journal -outdoor-education.

Tolich, Martin, Anna Paris, and Kerry Shephard. 2014. “An Evaluation of Experi-ential Learning in a Sociology Internship Class.” New Zealand Sociology 29 (1): 119–134. https://sites.google.com/site/nzsociology/journal.

Tolich, Martin, Kerry Shephard, Sally Carson, and Davina Hunt. 2013. “Co-managing the Sustainability of University Internship Programmes in Brownfield Sites.” New Zealand Sociology 28 (1): 156–170. https://sites.google.com/site/nzsociology/journal.

Page 184: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

ConCLuSIon

Anita Gibbs and Kate van Heugten

Each chapter in this book identifies a number of ways in which a greater understanding of social work theory, concepts, models, and skills might benefit sociologists. Some of the ideas and practices may not be entirely

new to sociologists, who may have been using some components or techniques while calling them by different names, although usually without fully under-standing how those components fit into a comprehensive practice framework. Hence, elements of public sociology might be expressed as community mind-edness (chapter 5) or experiential learning (chapter 9) or praxis (chapter 2) or reflexivity (chapter 2). There are, however, substantial distinct areas of knowledge for practice that social work has developed into comprehensive frameworks from which sociology can benefit; this provided the impetus for the writing of this book.

The following paragraphs tease out what Gibbs in chapter 7 calls the social work imagination—the linking of both theory and practice to interventions and outcomes—and discuss its utility for sociologists. Each chapter in this book provides insights into how the social work imagination can impact and make a positive difference in sociology, in terms of values, ethics, practice, and research.

Part I of the book (chapters 1, 2, and 3) lays the foundations of the social work imagination. Here social work and sociology’s respective histories are explored, and their points of convergence and difference are explained. The social work frameworks, ethics, and values that are introduced here are relevant beyond the world of social work, in many areas of human service practice and public sociology. This applicability is illustrated in the case study of Aleena in chapters 2 and 3. The need for both praxis—knowledge linked to action—and critical reflection is noted. The framework of critical reflection links strongly with sociological understandings of reflexivity but also challenges sociologists

Page 185: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

172 ● Anita Gibbs and Kate van Heugten

to dig deeper, be more self-aware, and develop the professional self while engaging in the more familiar tasks of deconstructing societies and systems.

The structure of part II of the book (chapters 4 through 9) presents a largely micro- to macroflow of ideas to encourage sociologists to first become familiar with interpersonal models of working with people and to then become aware of issues that affect families, groups, and communities. This micro to macro orientation of part II is grounded in the broadly conceived ecological approach explained in chapter 2.

Part II of the book provides readers with opportunities to consider the application of the social work imagination, notably by presenting frameworks that help readers to move beyond theorizing. Chapter 4, for example, draws on sociological understandings of risk but utilizes social work frameworks of strengths and safety to develop models of practice that can have positive application to clients and can build up clients’ strengths, rather than coerce or control them. Chapter 7 links intervention for social problems directly back to explanations for social problems but also anticipates that interven-tions will help change theory. Larrison and Korr (2013, 205) noted, “We cannot separate knowledge from action, research from practice, or theory from wisdom”; the social work imagination joins these forms of knowledge and action and employs them in an effort to achieve empowerment and social justice. Chapter 8 also neatly connects micro- to macrolevel considerations by exploring how workplace stress overload can be ameliorated from a socio-ecological and strengths perspective. The chapter considers explicit strategies, both individual and systemic, to reduce stress from bullying and mobbing at work. Chapter 5 offers additional insights into how, at the organizational level, sociologists might begin to work with groups and communities. All of the chapters in part II attempt to apply social work knowledge and concepts to situations and people groups that sociologists will come across in their careers.

In today’s multicultural world, where one does not have to travel to meet different cultures or ethnicities, having the appropriate knowledge, skills, and values for bicultural and multicultural communication becomes critical for sociologists. Chapters 5 and 6, with their focus on work with indigenous communities and Pacific Islands groups, offer readers some useful insights into emerging bicultural, multicultural, and group work skills of use to soci-ologists. Social workers have developed many insights from working with different cultural groups, and these two chapters have been written with an international audience in mind. Many of the issues and myths explored in these chapters will be familiar to readers from countries where there are indigenous populations or marginalized ethnic communities. Sociologists of the future will increasingly work with multiple-identity or multiethnic

Page 186: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Conclusion ● 173

groups and need to be confident to offer a genuinely culturally sensitive ser-vice. The ally model proposed by Bishop (2002) and discussed in chapter 6 offers a coherent approach for sociologists to use as part of a bicultural or multicultural practice. This model allows workers to stand alongside groups facing multiple forms of oppressions; it helps workers reflect on their own privileges and power and explains how workers can, ultimately, share power with the groups they serve (Bishop 2002). Most frameworks from social work—including the ally model, critical reflection, and empowerment orientations—encourage human service workers to be self-aware and self-critiquing. Sociologists might ponder the need to become more self-aware and self-critical as they are employed in the human services or in social activism and community development related occupations.

Social work prioritizes working with people, particularly vulnerable people: individuals, families, groups, communities, societies, and minority ethnic groups who are relegated to the margins of communities and are excluded from opportunities. Social workers and human service workers tend to “get their hands dirty” in the complex and messy world of dealing with real, every-day problems. Most of the chapters in this book illustrate how social work copes with this real, messy world and, moreover, finds solutions that recognize people’s strengths and offer hope. There are lessons here for sociology students who wish to make a career in human service work: be prepared, be skilled, be ethical, and be reflective; if you are, then you will find a rewarding career. The following statement appeared in a recent article (Armstrong 2014, 758):

With different goals and different epistemological assumptions, scholarship in sociology and social work, even when addressed to the same social problem, have divergent implications.

Ponder this statement. Do you agree with it? Has this been your own expe-rience of sociology and social work? We, the editors, believe that the disciplines have much more in common than is generally realized and moreover that the aspirations of students pursuing the study of social work and sociology usu-ally also have more in common than not. Each discipline can be challenged to learn from the other. In this book, an imbalance in the direction of that learning is corrected by suggesting not only that social workers can learn from sociological theorizing but also that sociologists can be challenged to apply social work derived knowledge to pursue social justice aims that many share with social workers. Sociologists themselves recognize that applied sociology has historically been neglected (chapters 5 and 9) and suggest that sociology graduates need to have the skills to work with vulnerable people and commu-nities. The chapters in this book demonstrate that social work knowledge can

Page 187: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

174 ● Anita Gibbs and Kate van Heugten

provide important ideas about enhancing skills, competencies, ethics, research mindedness, and experiential learning, in ways that promote opportunities for sociology students to be employed in human service occupations.

Social work’s humanitarian mission of creating a socially just society and alleviating the oppression of the poorest and most vulnerable sectors of society (Kam 2014); its core principles of advocacy, human rights, equality, par-ticipation, and self-determination; and its key frameworks of anti-oppression, narrative, strengths, and critical reflection, are all focused on a positive regard for humanity rather than a deficit or problem-oriented outlook. Much of this will resonate with sociologists who read this book, especially critical and public sociologists. In chapter 7, readers are introduced to ideas that link social theory to a range of interventive strategies applied to the social problem of family poverty. Armstrong believes there is room for a strong partnership between social work and sociology in solving many social problems (Arm-strong 2014), and we agree, but we also believe that there are many more areas beyond social problems for joint theorizing and praxis. We are heartened by increasing signs of collaboration between the disciplines, as is exemplified by the yearly International Conference on Sociology and Social Work and in our personal experiences at the University of Otago and the University of Canter-bury (this book being one example of such collaboration). In many respects, the two disciplines might be viewed as interdependent. One might ask, How can social work exist without acknowledging its sociological heritage, without continuous discussions between social workers and their sociology colleagues, without social workers reading the current sociological literature? Although social workers often do appear to attempt to exist with only scant reference to sociology, we consider this a grave loss. And conversely, how can sociology flourish if it remains in denial of its shared history with social work, making only occasional forays into public and applied sociology or into experiential learning? We argue in chapter 1 that the two disciplines have moved away from historical dualisms. In the spirit of pioneers like Jane Addams, who dem-onstrated that lived experience and scientific methodology can coexist, we are convinced there is a new era of cooperation ahead. Social work, as an academic and praxis oriented discipline, has come of age and is ready to claim the place of the social work imagination in contributing to joint efforts toward solving complex social problems that no discipline can address alone.

References

Armstrong, Elizabeth. 2014. “Shared Subjects, Divergent Epistemologies: Sociology, Social Work, and Social Problems Scholarship.” Qualitative Social Work 13 (6): 757–765. doi:10.1177/1473325014542959.

Page 188: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Conclusion ● 175

Bishop, Anne. 2002. Becoming an Ally: Breaking the Cycle of Oppression in People. 2nd ed. New York: Zed Books.

Kam, Ping Kwong. 2014. “Back to the ‘Social’ of Social Work: Reviving the Social Work Profession’s Contribution to the Promotion of Social Justice.” International Social Work 57 (6): 723–740. doi:10.1177/0020872812447118.

Larrison, Tara Earls, and Wynne S. Korr. 2013. “Does Social Work Have a Signature Pedagogy?” Journal of Social Work Education 49 (2): 194–206. doi:10.1080/10437797.2013.768102.

Page 189: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

This page intentionally left blank

Page 190: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

notes on Contributors

Anaru Eketone is senior lecturer in social work at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. His tribal affiliation is to the Ngāti Maniapoto and Waikato tribes of the North Island of New Zealand. Anaru has a background in community development and health promotion practice. At Otago, work-ing closely with Shayne Walker, using a coteaching model, Anaru teaches extensively in the area of indigenous/Māori social work and bicultural social work. Anaru has published articles and book chapters about kaupapa Māori research and biculturalism, as well as the importance of native and narrative understandings of indigenous research and practice.

Anita Gibbs is an associate professor in social work and sociology at the Uni-versity of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. She originally trained as a social worker in the United Kingdom, working in justice services, and gained her PhD in social work from the University of Bristol. Her teaching includes criminology, the sociology of families, and social work with families. Her research interests are varied, including probation, mental health, parenting and adoption, and qualitative research methodologies. She has published ex-tensively and internationally in all of these areas.

Emily Keddell is a senior lecturer in social work at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, and holds a PhD in social work. Her research interests cover a number of related areas of child and family social work, informed by critical social constructionism. Thus, her research explores the intersec-tions of meaning, context, power, and actions/practices in the child welfare context, including the underlying discourses of policy reforms, the effect of different models of practice, and the decision-making drivers. Her recent writings explore how meanings associated with risk, safety, and children’s best interests inform social work decision making and what causes variability in decision outcomes in child protection practice. She is also involved in poverty advocacy and teaches child and family social work in the social work program.

Page 191: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

178 ● notes on Contributors

Cathryne L. Schmitz, professor and chair, Department of Peace and Conflict Studies, and professor, Department of Social Work, at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, is an affiliate faculty in Women and Gender Studies and a research fellow with the Center for New North Carolinians. She has a master’s degree in social work from the University of Washington, and she completed her PhD in social work at Ohio State University. Her scholar-ship focuses on organizational development and community building, analysis of the privilege/oppression nexus, critical multiculturalism, leadership, inter-disciplinary education, global engagement, peacebuilding, and environmental sustainability. She is engaged in intercultural global education and knowledge building. She has numerous publications and is currently focusing in the areas of peace assessment, environmental justice, and organizational/community transformation.

Tony Stanley is the principal social worker for the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, United Kingdom. Part of the senior management team, he is lead-ing strategic reforms for social work, and he provides practice leadership across the local authority. Previously holding senior lectureships in social work and sociology, he has published in both, with a particular focus on risk. Tony has a master’s degree in sociology and a PhD in social work, both from the University of Canterbury. Tony has a practice background in child and family social work.

Martin Tolich is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology, Gender and Social Work at the University of Otago. He gained his first degrees in sociology from the University of Auckland and his PhD in sociology from the University of California. His research specialisms are the sociology of the workplace and qualitative research ethics. His two forthcoming books are The Politicisation of Ethics Review in New Zealand (Dunmore Press, 2015) and Qualitative Ethics in Practice (Left Coast Press, in press.)

Patrick Vakaoti is Fijian and has been teaching social work at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, since 2009. He completed his sociology undergraduate training in Fiji and his PhD in social work at the University of Queensland, Australia. He has research experience in a variety of indigenous people studies, and he has published in the areas of Pacific youth participation and leadership and the experiences of street-based youth. He has worked on numerous consultancies for organizations like the United Nations Children’s Fund, the Knowing Children program, the Pacific Leadership Programme (Australian Agency for International Development), and the Secretariat of the Pacific Community on child protection, youth leadership, and youth development issues in Fiji and the Pacific Region. He involves himself in

Page 192: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

notes on Contributors ● 179

community-based projects for young people in Fiji, as part of his social service contribution.

Kate van Heugten is an associate professor in human services and social work at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. She completed an undergraduate degree in sociology and a master’s degree in social work. Following her employment in child welfare, health social work, and coun-seling/psychotherapy services, she gained a PhD in social work from the Uni-versity of Canterbury. Her current areas of research and teaching include the impact of neoliberalism on social science education and on work in the human services; workplace bullying; loss, grief, and mourning; interpersonal violence; human rights; and mental health issues. Recent publications include Human Service Organizations in the Disaster Context (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014) and Social Work under Pressure: How to Overcome Stress, Fatigue and Burnout in the Workplace (Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2011).

Shayne Walker is senior lecturer in social work at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. His tribal affiliation is to Kai Tahu and Ngāti Kahun-gunu, in the South and North Islands of New Zealand, as well as to Scotland and England. Shayne is a qualified social worker and teaches in the areas of treaty-based social work, kaupapa Māori research and practice, indigenous family work, and bicultural practice. His research interests include all of these and Māori fostering and adoption processes.

Page 193: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

This page intentionally left blank

Page 194: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Abbott, Edith, 14, 15Addams, Jane, 3, 12, 13–14, 15, 51,

174advocacy, empowerment, and self-

determination theory, 134, 136Agger, Ben, 30Alaszewski, Andy, 69Aleena (case study), frameworks/

approaches applied to, 27, 28–29, 171

anti-oppressive, 36critical reflection, 30–31ecosystems, 34ethical dilemma resolution, 60–61indigenous, 40–41rights-based, 38signs of safety, 81strengths, competencies, and success,

32task-centered, 42–43

Alexander, Daleen, 145–146Allen, Tammy D., 145ally, concept of, 114–115, 173almoners (settlement movement social-

service workers), 12alternative theory, 127, 128–129, 135Amaral, Alberto, 21American Association of Social Workers,

53American Social Science Association,

12American Sociological Association, 157,

159Andrew (case study), 77–78

anti-oppressive and empowerment approaches, 4, 19, 27, 34–36, 57, 111, 112

Aotearoa/New Zealand, 2–3applied sociology programs in, 89biculturalism meaning in, 104child poverty ranking of, 123demographics of, 95indigenous frameworks in, 39–40indigenous values in, 55Pacific Island peoples in, 5, 86–87,

95–100, 114, 123Pākehā in, 3, 103, 104–105, 109,

113–114social work/sociology collaboration

and division in, 9, 18–19, 22See also bicultural frameworks;

Māori, biculturalism and; Māori people

Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW), 106–107, 111

applied sociology, 87, 88–90, 99, 173public sociologists, 21, 48, 99–100,

157, 171, 174See also research methods internship

course (University of Otago)Armstrong, Elizabeth, 173, 174Armstrong, Jeremy, 145Arrendondo, Patricia, 112, 116Askeland, Gurid Aga, 30assessments. See risk assessment/evaluationAssociation for the Advancement of

Social Work with Groups, Inc., 92

Index

Page 195: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

182 ● Index

Austin, Wendy, 146Australia, 9, 18–19, 30, 75, 123Austrin, Terry, 22autonomy, ethical dilemmas and, 59

Bacallao, Martica L., 103Bach, Rebecca, 85, 157Bakir, Nadia, 112Baltimore Charities Organization

Society, 12Bandura, Albert, 160Banks, Sarah, 18, 36, 37, 49–55, 146Bannister, Robert C., 11, 14, 16Barnett, Henrietta, 13Barnett, Samuel, 13Bauwens, Jennifer, 146Beck, Aaron, 129, 133, 136Beck, Ulrich, 68, 69Beddoe, Liz, 58, 152behavior modification and cognitive

restructuring theory, 126, 132, 133, 136

beneficence, ethical dilemmas and, 59Bennett, Milton, 110, 112Bentley, Tim, 142, 151Beresford, Peter, 37Berg, Insoo Kim, 31–32, 76Berger, Peter L., 159Berry, John W., 107–108bicultural frameworks, 3, 19, 39–40,

103–117configurations of, 113–116definitions and origins of, 103–106multiculturalism and monoculturalism

and, 104, 107–109, 172–173vs. working biculturally, 109–112See also Māori, biculturalism and

biculturalism, 87, 88, 89ally concept in, 114–115, 173definition of, 103–106vs. working biculturally, 109–112

Bishop, Anne, 111, 112, 114–115, 173Bolman, Lee, 151, 152Booth, Charles, 13

Boston, Jonathon, 124Bourdieu, Pierre, 29Bradbury-Jones, Caroline, 70brainstorming, 97–98Braithwaite, John, 125Braverman, Mark, 147, 150Braye, Suzy, 55, 56, 57Breckinridge, Sophinisba, 14, 15Broadhurst, Karen, 69Bronfenbrenner, Urie, 33Buckley, Helen, 72bullying and mobbing, 5, 147–151,

152, 172Burawoy, Michael, 21, 157Burgess, Adam, 69Burke, Beverly, 35, 37burnout, 144, 146

Calhoun, Craig J., 12, 13, 16, 21Canada, 75, 103–104Caplan, Robert D., 144Carmichael, Teresa, 145–146casework/psychotherapeutic social work

approaches, 12, 18, 53Central Committee for Education and

Training in Social Work, 158Chapple, Simon, 123charity organization societies, 12Chenoweth, Lesley, 55, 56Chevalier Hostel (Fiji), 87–88, 96child abuse, 67–68, 71, 79–80child focused orientation, 71–72child poverty, 123, 124Child Poverty Monitor project

(Aotearoa/New Zealand), 124child protection orientation, 71–72Children’s Commissioner’s Expert

Advisory Group (Aotearoa/New Zealand), 124

child welfare work, 67–81case study in, 77–78vs. child focused orientation, 71–72vs. child protection orientation, 71at Hull House, 13

Page 196: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Index ● 183

risk in, 4, 67–68, 69–81signs of safety approach to, 4, 73,

74–79, 80, 81, 125strengths approach to, 4, 73–74, 80,

81, 125See also risk assessment/evaluation

Chriss, James J., 11, 16, 17chronosystem level, 33–34Churchman, Rosaling, 21civil rights movement, 10, 16, 18, 53Clarke, Chris, 129, 133, 135class struggle theory, 132–133Code of Ethics of the Sociological

Association of Aotearoa New Zealand (1990), 48

cognitive-behavioral theory, 41, 42, 127, 129–130, 135–136

cognitive-behavioral therapy, 126, 133, 136

Coit, Stanton, 13collaboration. See social work/sociology

collaboration and divisioncollegial support, 5, 141, 144, 152

See also workplace stresscollegial violence, 5, 146–151

See also workplace stresscolonization, 38–40communication, 57, 60, 97

biculturalism skills in, 111, 172workplace stress and, 147, 148, 151,

152communitarian theory (alternative

theory), 128–129community mindedness, 171competency standards for social workers

(Aotearoa/New Zealand), 111compulsion theory, 121, 126, 132, 135conceptual frameworks, 27–43, 171

anti-oppressive and empowerment, 4, 19, 27, 34–36, 111, 112

ecosystems, 4, 27, 32–34, 41, 144, 147, 172

indigenous, 4, 27, 38–41rights-based, 27, 36–38

strengths, competencies, and success, 4, 27, 31–32, 41, 73–74, 80, 81, 125

task-centered, 4, 27, 41–43, 136vs. theories, 28See also critical reflection approaches

Connell, R. W., 11, 21Connolly, Marie, 28, 32–37, 41, 55,

56, 71consciousness raising, political, 13, 36,

115–116, 133–134, 136construction. See social construction;

social deconstruction; social reconstruction

Conte, Jeffrey M., 143continuums

of bicultural work, 106, 110, 112ethnocentric-ethnorelative, 110, 111,

112in group work, 94personal-political, 53of practical applicability, 10of workplace violence, 147

Cook, Kimberly J., 157Cowden, Stephen, 49, 52, 53, 54Craig, Elizabeth, 123, 124Cram, Fiona, 40critical reflection approaches, 4, 27,

29–31, 43, 171–172ethical dilemmas and, 60, 61group work and, 99helping skills in, 58research mindedness and, 158use of self in, 57–58values and, 50

critical theory, empowerment approach and, 35

Crothers, Charles, 9, 18, 21cultural literacy and fluency, 111, 113,

114, 116culture

indigenous, 3, 4, 19, 27, 38–41, 55See also bicultural frameworks; Māori,

biculturalism; Māori people; Pacific Island peoples

Page 197: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

184 ● Index

Dalrymple, Jane, 35, 37Daniels, Ken, 18Davies, Martin, 18Davys, Allyson, 58, 152De Jong, Peter, 31–32De Shazer, Steve, 76Deal, Terrence, 151, 152Dean, Mitchell, 72debt, 123–124decision making, alternative theory and,

129See also ethical dilemmas

deconstruction, 2, 29, 30, 109, 130, 172

Department of Social Welfare (Aotearoa/New Zealand), 108–109

descriptive ethics, 50–51Developmental Model of Intercultural

Sensitivity (Bennett scale), 110Dhabhar, Firdaus S., 143diversity, 107Dobson, Deborah, 129, 130, 136Dobson, Keith S., 129, 130, 136Doel, Mark, 41, 42Dollard, Maureen F., 152Dominelli, Lena, 11, 18, 34–35, 111Duffy, Maureen, 147, 148, 149, 150Durie, Edward T., 105–106Durie, Mason, 104, 106Dybicz, Phillip, 27, 31

ecosystems approaches, 4, 27, 32–34, 144, 147, 172

task-centered frameworks and, 41Edwards, Steve, 75, 79Eketone, Anaru, 5, 40Elizabethan Poor Law (1601), 12employment in sociology and social

work, 2, 11, 21sociology internship course and,

159–160empowerment and anti-oppressive

approaches, 4, 19, 27, 34–36, 57, 111, 112

England, 12, 13environments of influence, levels of,

33–34, 35Epstein, Laura, 41, 42, 122, 123, 130Essex, Susanne, 78ethical dilemmas, 4, 51, 58–62

decision-making models for, 54–55, 59–60

disagreement as tool in solving, 54–55

in research methods internship course design, 161–162

workplace stress and, 146ethical theory, 15, 20, 50, 54–55ethics, 4, 37, 47–62, 171

definition of, 50–52in practice, 49professional codes of, 49, 51–52, 56social work skills and, 56–58social work values and, 55–56

ethics applications (research methods internship course), 62, 161

ethnocentric-ethnorelative continuum, 110, 111, 112

eustress (healthy stress), 142–143exclusion. See social exclusionexhaustion, 144exosystem level, 33–34experiential learning, 85, 89, 160–162,

164–166, 171explanatory theory, 125–126, 127–131,

134–137

Faletolu, Tautalamaleavailumaotamalii Anastasia, 114

family poverty, 5, 123–124, 134–137See also child welfare work

Fargion, Silvia, 68, 71Farnsworth, John, 22Featherstone, Brid, 69, 73, 80feminist frameworks, 35–36Ferguson, Harry, 79Fine, Gary Alan, 163Finkelstein, Marv, 85, 88, 89, 90, 100

Page 198: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Index ● 185

First Nation peoples (Canada), 104Fleras, Augie, 104, 105, 106, 112Follette, Victoria, 129, 130Fook, Jan, 29–30, 31, 35, 80frameworks. See conceptual frameworksFrance, Alan, 73Franklin, Donna L., 12Freiburg, Kate, 73Freire, Paulo, 115, 128, 132, 135French, John R. P., 144Freudenberger, Herbert J., 144funding, 16

decreasing, 22workplace stress and, 142, 144–145

Gallardo-Cooper, Maritza, 112, 116Gardner, Fiona, 29–30Garrett, Kendra, 91–92, 93gender

Hull House and, 13–14social work/sociology divisions by,

10, 14, 16, 19Germain, Carel, 33–34Germany, 17Gibbons, Jill, 54Gibbs, Anita, 3–4, 5, 40, 171Gibson, Priscilla Anne, 114, 115Gilbert, Neil, 71Gill, Timothy M., 17Gillingham, Philipp, 68, 69Gitterman, Alex, 33–34Gockel, Annemarie, 128, 129Gomes, Jean, 145Gouldner, Alvin W., 16–17government involvement

explanatory and interventive theory about, 134–135

liberal/neoliberal theory and, 127–128

socialism and, 128Grady, Christine, 146Graham, Douglas, 105Gramsci, Antonio, 132Gray, Mel, 32, 54, 74

Great Jobs for Sociology Majors (Lambert), 159

Green, Thomas, 147, 149, 150, 151group work, 5, 85–100, 172

among colleagues, 89–90vs. casework in a group, 91definition of, 90–91facilitation of, 87, 92, 93–95, 96,

98–99nonparticipation/passivity in, 97–98with Pacific young people, 5, 95–100remedial, reciprocal, and social goals

views of, 90in research methods internship

course, 160, 164–165, 167structure of, 91–93, 99university study as lacking in

instruction about, 87–88Gutierrez, Lorraine M., 35Guttmann, David, 59, 61

Hamric, Ann B., 146Harris, Barbara, 128, 129Harrison, Kaeren, 57Hartford, Margaret, 91Healy, Karen, 21, 30–35, 37, 41

on group work, 90–93, 97–99helping skills, 57, 58Heynes, Anne, 124Hiebert, Walter, 134Hirsch, Eric D., Jr., 111Hoel, Helge, 148Hohepa, Margie, 116Hollis, Awhina, 109Hollis-English, Awhina, 113Holt, Kim, 69Homel, Ross, 73Howe, David, 73Hugman, Richard, 50, 52, 54–55Hull House (Chicago settlement), 3,

13–15Hull-House Maps and Papers, 13, 14humanist theory, 131, 136human rights, 36–37, 43

Page 199: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

186 ● Index

human rights focus, 27, 36–38Hunter, Sally V., 141Hutchinson, Marie, 151hypotheses testing, 14

icebreakers, 92, 93–94, 97Ife, Jim, 28, 36, 37, 38, 133immigrants, 13, 15, 108indigenous frameworks, 4, 27, 38–41indigenous peoples, 3, 19, 38, 55

See also bicultural frameworks; Māori, biculturalism and; Māori people

individual vs. social problems, 122–123, 126

integrated theory application, 124interdisciplinary work. See social work/

sociology collaboration and division, roots of

International Conference on Sociology and Social Work, 21, 174

International Federation of Social Work, 55–56

international practice frameworks, 56internships. See research methods

internship course (University of Otago)

intervention/interventive theory, 121–137, 172

in child welfare work, 67, 68complexity in, 122family poverty and, 134–137personal level of, 135–137praxis and, 124–126risk management and, 68social/structural level of, 134–135strategies of, 131–134

interviews, 57, 61Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic

Perspective (Berger), 159

Jabour, Anya, 14Jackson, Moana, 111Jain, Aditya, 147Jeffries, Vincent, 20, 21, 48

Jenkins, Moira, 148Jensen, Mary Ann C., 91–92, 100Journal of Social Service Review, 15justice, ethical decision-making and, 59

Kalin, Rudolf, 107–108Kam, Ping Kwong, 174Kant, Immanuel, 54karakia (prayers for opening and closing

meetings), 111, 113Karasek, Robert A., 143kaupapa (values, perspectives, and

understandings) in indigenous social work framework, 40

kawa (protocols), 40, 55, 110Keddell, Emily, 4, 70, 71, 75, 76, 79,

125Kelly, Erin, 145Kelly, Sarah, 76Kelly, Stephanie, 17, 21, 151Kisthart, Walter, 31–32Klein, Julie Thompson, 22ko au (interconnectedness), 55Koonin, Michelle, 147, 149, 150, 151Korr, Wynne S., 142, 172Križ, Katrin, 71, 72Kuh, George D., 160Kurland, Roselle, 91, 92, 93Kyonne, Jinman, 144

Lalande, Julia, 104Lambert, Stephen, 159Landy, Frank J., 143language

Māori, 3, 40, 105, 106, 109, 110, 111, 113

rights-based frameworks and, 38Lankau, Melenie J., 144Larrison, Tara Earls, 172Lasalvia, Antonio, 144Laslett, Barbara, 20Legge, Jaimie, 124Lehmann, Jennifer, 31Leighninger, Leslie, 12, 13, 14

Page 200: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Index ● 187

Leiter, Michael P., 148Leka, Stavroula, 147Lengermann, Patricia, 13, 15, 16Levin, Irene, 13Levine, Hal B., 105Lewin, Roger, 151Lewis, Joanne, 134liberal/neoliberal theory, 127–128, 134Liefooghe, Andreas, 150life model of social work, 33–34literature reviews, 162Littlechild, Brian, 142Lloyd, Claire, 116Lorenz, Walter, 21Lowe, Tony B., 142Ludick, Marné, 145–146Lutgen-Sandvik, Pamela, 148Lymbery, Mark, 57

Macdonald, Geraldine, 73Macdonald, Kenneth, 73Mackenzie Davey, Kate, 150macrosystem level, 33–34Magalhães, António, 21mana (respect) in indigenous social

work framework, 40, 55Māori, biculturalism and, 103–117

ally model in, 115configurations of, 113–116multiculturalism and, 107–109origins of, 104–106social workers and advocates for,

106–107, 111vs. working biculturally, 109–112See also bicultural frameworks

Māori people, 2–3child poverty among, 123indigenous frameworks and, 39–40language of, 3, 40, 105, 106, 109,

110, 111, 113Mariott, Lisa, 109Marsh, Peter, 41, 42Maslach, Christina, 148Maslow, Abraham, 131

Massey University (Aotearoa/New Zealand), 18

mauri ora (well-being), 55McAuliffe, Donna, 55, 56McCann, I. Lisa, 141McCarthy, Catherine, 145McMahon, Anthony, 19McTighe, John P., 146Meagher, Gabrielle, 21media attention

on child welfare cases, 67, 69, 73, 80social problems created through,

122–123men, 10, 14, 19Mesny, Anne, 85mesosystem level, 33–34meta-ethics, 50–51Miall, Hugh, 149micropratice approaches, 18microsystem level, 33–34Middleman, Ruth, 93mihimihi (introduction of oneself ),

111, 113Milkman, Harvey, 130Mills, C. Wright, 17, 68, 88, 121, 159Mills, John Stuart, 54Minahan, Anne, 34mobbing and bullying, 5, 147–151,

152, 172monoculturalism, 104, 108–109Montilla, R. Esteban, 112morality, 17, 37

See also ethicsMorris, Kate, 28, 73, 80multiculturalism, 104, 107–109,

172–173See also bicultural frameworks

multiethnic societies, 108Munford, Robyn, 9, 18, 31, 32, 39–40,

45, 46Munro, Eileen, 70

Namie, Gary, 148, 149, 150Namie, Ruth, 148, 149, 150

Page 201: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

188 ● Index

narrative therapy, 31–32Nash, Mary, 9, 18, 19Neighborhood Guild (New York

settlement), 13New Zealand. See Aotearoa/New

ZealandNew Zealand Constitution Act (1852),

104Niebrugge, Gillian, 13, 15, 16Nissen, Maria Appel, 122Nobel Peace Prize, 14normative ethics, 50–51Northen, Helen, 93Nzira, Viola, 127, 128

objectivity (value neutrality), 14–15, 16–17, 20, 48

occupational groups, shared values in, 50O’Connor, Ian, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59–60,

109Oppenheimer, Martin, 16, 17oppression, biculturalism and, 114–115O’Reilly, Tom, 104Organisation for Economic Co-operation

and Development, 123organizational rules, 52, 56, 151–153

Pacific Island peoples, 86–87child poverty among, 123diversity of, 114group work with young, 5, 95–100structural disadvantages for, 95–96

Pākehā (white New Zealanders), 3, 103, 109

bicultural work with, 113–114monoculturalism of, 104–105

Palm, Kathleen, 129, 130Paris, Anna, 158, 165Parker, Jonathan, 160participation/democracy theory, 37,

133, 135Parton, Nigel, 71, 75Payne, Malcolm, 28, 33, 35–36, 41–42,

90, 122–126, 129–131, 134

Pearlman, Laurie A., 141Pearson, Adria, 129, 130Pedraza, Silvia, 17Pelka, Daniel, 79Perri, 6, 122personal vs. political, 53perspectives, 124–125, 126Pettit, Philip, 125Pihama, Leonie, 40Pincus, Allen, 34Plummer, Kenneth, 20, 48policy orientation, risk in, 70–72, 73Pon, Gordon, 111Postle, Karen, 56, 57poverty, 15

definition of, 123of families and children, 123–124settlement movements and, 13

poweranti-oppressive and empowerment

approaches, 4, 19, 27, 34–36, 57, 111, 112

monoculturalism and, 108power-with vs. power-over, 111, 112,

114, 115workplace violence and, 147,

149–150See also social worker/client

relationships, client empowerment inpraxis, 5, 124–126, 171

frameworks and, 28historical deviation from in

sociology, 10public sociology and, 16–17social work imagination and, 121University of Chicago scholars

dividing it from theorizing, 14–15

Preston-Shoot, Michael, 55, 56, 57privilege, identifying, 115professional competence/accountability

skills, 57professionalization, 16psychology, 12

Page 202: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Index ● 189

Puao-te-Ata-tu (daybreak) (Ministerial Advisory Committee report), 109

public sociologists, 21, 48, 99–100, 157, 171, 174

applied sociology, 87, 88–90, 99, 173Pullen-Sansfacon, Annie, 49, 52, 53, 54

Quine, Lyn, 151Quinney, Anne, 160

radical social work, 12–13, 17–18radical theory, 130–131, 136Ramsbotham, Oliver, 149Rand, Marjorie L., 146Rapp, Charles, 31–32Reamer, Frederic G., 48, 49, 51, 53,

55, 59reconstruction, 29, 30Redmond, Gerry, 123, 134, 136reflection-in-action, 29reflective questions, 6

analyzing and solving social problems, 137

biculturalism, 117child welfare work, 81conceptual frameworks, 43group work, 100research mindedness, 169values and ethics, 62workplace stress and violence, 153

reflexive modernity, 69reflexivity, 4, 17, 29, 47, 164, 171

bicultural work and, 87, 88, 99See also critical reflection

approachesRegine, Birute, 151research methods, development at Hull

House, 13, 15research methods internship course

(University of Otago), 5–6, 89, 157–169

building and dismantling support scaffolding of, 158, 161, 162–164, 166, 168

client/student relationship in, 158, 161–162, 163, 164–165, 166–168

evolution of, 158, 162–164, 166fears of students in, 164–166,

167–168lecturer/student relationship in, 163,

165–166, 168, 169literature review in, 160, 162, 164,

166, 168motivations behind design of, 158,

159–161as “real” vs. abstract learning,

166–168reflective journals in, 163, 164,

166–168setup and approval of, 158, 161–162students’ descriptions of, 158–159,

164–168research mindedness, 165–169

definition of, 157–158resilience, 30, 32, 79

See also strengths, competencies, and success approaches

Rhodes, Carl, 150Richmond, Mary, 12, 14rights-based frameworks, 27, 36–38risk assessment/evaluation, 12, 57, 172

in child welfare work, 4, 67–68, 69–81impact of, on children and families,

72–73in policy orientation, 70–72, 73professional discretion/consensus

approaches to, 70sense of pervasiveness of risk in,

69–70, 73signs of safety approach in, 73,

74–79, 80, 81statistics in, 70strengths perspective in, 4, 73–74,

80, 81value judgments in, 72See also child welfare work

risk avoidance, 56risk factor science, 70, 73

Page 203: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

190 ● Index

risk management, 53in child welfare work, 67–68by individuals, 69–70, 74

Rittel, Horst W. J., 21, 67, 81, 122, 125Robinson, Vivienne, 116Rogers, Carl, 131role play in group work, 94Rose, Nikolas, 70Rosoff, Philip M., 52Rothschild, Babette, 146Rowe, Mary, 150Ruch, Gillian, 57Russell, Mary, 128, 129Ruwhiu, Leland, 39–40, 55

safety plans, 165safe uncertain situations, 77–78Saleebey, Dennis, 31–32, 74Sanders, Jackie, 31, 32, 39–40Santiago-Rivera, Azara L. L., 112, 116Sarris, Aspa, 148Schmitz, Cathryne L., 5Schofield, Margot J., 141Schön, Donald, 29School of Social Service Administration

(University of Chicago), 15Schwartz, Tony, 145scientific method, value neutrality in,

14–15Scully, Maureen, 150Seigfried, Charlene Haddock, 15, 51self-awareness, 4, 47, 62, 110, 172, 173

See also critical reflection approachesSelye, Hans, 143service-user-led movements, 37Setterlund, Deborah, 109settlement movement, 12–13, 18, 53Shannon, Pat, 121–122, 123, 125–130,

134, 135, 137Shardlow, Stephen, 55, 56, 58Shaw, Ian, 11, 13, 14, 15, 48Shephard, Kerry, 158, 165Shlonsky, Aron, 70Sieber, Joan, 161, 165

signs of safety approach, 4, 73, 74–79, 80, 81, 125, 172

signs of safety mapping and scaling tool, 78

Sim, Dalice, 109Skivenes, Marit, 71, 72Sloan, Lacey M., 147, 148, 149, 150Smale, Gerald, 122small group formation, in group work,

94–95Smith, Robert L., 112Smokowski, Paul R., 103social action, group work and, 98social class, 128, 132–133social construction, 28, 30, 31,

34, 49codes of ethics as, 51constructionist perspectives, 75–76,

123of families, 67–73, 75–76of risk, 67–69, 71, 73, 75–76workplace violence and, 150See also intervention/interventive

theory; theory/theorizingsocial deconstruction, 2, 29, 30, 109,

130, 172social exclusion, 30, 57, 70, 122, 123,

173advocacy, empowerment, and self-

determination and, 134radical theory and, 130, 136workplace stress and, 147, 150

socialist theory, 128, 135social mapping, 13, 14social problems

definition of, 122–123models for solving, 125

social reconstruction, 29, 30social/structural vs. personal levels,

122–123, 127–131, 134–135social worker/client relationships, 56,

57, 58, 60, 111in child protection orientation, 71trust in, 40, 58, 60, 97

Page 204: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Index ● 191

social worker/client relationships, client empowerment in, 4, 27, 30, 34–38, 59, 173

biculturalism and, 111, 112child welfare work and, 68, 73, 74,

75–79cognitive-behavioral theory and, 130indigenous frameworks and, 40–41as interventive theory strategy, 134radical theory and, 130–131signs of safety approach in, 75–79,

80, 81as social work skill, 55, 57strengths perspective and, 74, 80, 81

Social Workers Registration Board (Aotearoa/New Zealand), 107, 111

social work imagination, 5, 121, 137, 171, 172, 174

social work skills, 56–58, 60Social Work Skills and Knowledge

(Trevithick), 57social work/sociology collaboration and

division, roots of, 9–22, 171in Aotearoa/New Zealand, 9, 18–19,

22in Australasia, 18–19charity organization societies and, 12divine ordinance understanding of

social structures, 11funding in, 16, 22gender and, 10, 13–14, 16, 19Gouldner and, 16–17at Hull House, 3, 13–15professionalization and, 16public sociology, 16–17radical social work, 17–18settlement movements and, 12–13theorizing and, 9, 12, 14–15at University of Chicago, 13–16value disagreement, 9, 16–17

social work/sociology disciplines, recent collaborations in, 1, 11, 20–22, 174

social work values, 55–56

sociological imagination, 68–69, 88, 121

Sociological Imagination, The (Mills), 159

Solomon, Brenda, 68solution-focused approach, 31–32Solving Social Problems (Shannon and

Young), 121–122Spalter-Roth, Roberta, 85, 90, 100Sperry, Len, 147, 148, 149, 150Spoonley, Paul, 104, 105, 106, 112Spratt, Trevor, 71Stanford, Sonya, 73Stanley, Tony, 4, 17, 21, 78, 80, 125,

151Staples, Lee, 136Stark, Evan, 16, 17Starr, Ellen Gates, 13State-Owned Enterprises Act (1986),

105Statham, Daphne, 122statistical methods, 14, 70stimulus materials in group work, 94strategies of problem solving, 121, 124,

125strengths, competencies, and success

approaches, 27, 31–32, 41in child welfare work, 4, 73–74, 80,

81, 125stress. See workplace stresssupervision, 58Swan, David, 134Sweden, 123

task-centered approaches, 4, 27, 41–43, 136

Taylor, Julie S., 70Tesoriero, Frank, 98Theorell, Töres, 143theory/theorizing, 9, 12

alternative, 127, 128–129, 135behavior modification and cognitive

restructuring, 126, 132, 133, 136class struggle, 132–133

Page 205: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

192 ● Index

cognitive-behavioral, 41, 42, 127, 129–130, 135–136

definition of, 125divided from praxis, 14–15vs. frameworks, 28public sociology and, 17radical, 130–131, 136socialist, 128, 135See also conceptual frameworks;

intervention/interventive theoryThomas, Christopher H., 144Thorns, David C., 11, 21tikanga (customs), 40, 55tokenism, 110, 116Tolich, Martin, 5–6, 85, 89, 103, 109,

158, 161–162, 165Tosone, Carol, 146Toynbee Hall (London settlement), 13transformations, relationships of power

anti-oppressive and empowerment approaches, 4, 19, 27, 34–36, 57, 111, 112

See also powerTreaty of Waitangi (Aotearoa/New

Zealand, 1840), 3, 39, 104–105, 107, 109, 112

Trevithick, Pam, 28, 57Trotter, Chris, 58, 130Tuckman, Bruce W., 91–92, 100Turnell, Andrew, 75, 78, 79Tuson, Graham, 122

Ulrich, Connie M., 146United Kingdom, 9, 34, 53, 123United States, 9, 10, 12, 17, 88, 103

settlement movements in, 13, 18, 53university departments, colocation of,

1, 22university departments, separation in,

1, 12in Australasia, 18–19at University of Chicago, 14–16

University of Canterbury (Aotearoa/New Zealand), 18, 174

University of Chicago (U.S.), 3, 13–16University of Otago (Aotearoa/New

Zealand), 89, 158, 160, 174See also research methods internship

course (University of Otago)use of self, 57–58, 109

Vakaoti, Patrick, 5, 86, 95, 96value judgments, 56, 72value-laden decisions, 146value-laden scientific method, Addams

and, 15value neutrality, 14–15, 16–17, 20, 48values, 4, 47–50, 52–62, 171

clarification of, 53critical reflection and, 50definition of, 49–50ethical dilemmas and, 60–61ideas about universal, 49, 54indigenous, 55individual vs. social, 9, 49in practice, 49professional vs. organizational

conflict, 56ranking of, 50social work, 55–56study of, 48

Van Harrison, R., 144van Heugten, Kate, 3–5, 11, 18, 42,

52–53, 141–144, 146–148, 150–152

Victoria University of Wellington (Aotearoa/New Zealand), 18, 160

violence, workplace, 5, 146–151volunteerism, 86

Wacquant, Loic J. D., 29Wagner, Dennis, 70waiata (appropriate cultural songs in

appropriate cultural circumstances), 111, 113

wairuatanga (philosophy and spirituality) in indigenous social work framework, 40, 55

theory/theorizing (continued )

Page 206: Kate Van Heugten, Anita Gibbs-Social Work for Sociologists_ Theory and Practice-Palgrave Macmillan (2015)

Index ● 193

Waitangi Tribunal, 105Waldegrave, Charles, 110, 114Walker, Ranginui, 104Walker, Shayne, 5, 40, 110Walker, Sheila, 40Wanberg, Kenneth, 130Ward, Tony, 56Watson, Lilla, 116Watson, Tony J., 17Webber, Melvin M., 21, 67, 81, 122,

125Weber, Max, 16, 17Weick, Anne, 74Weinzimmer, Julianne, 85, 157welfare provisions, 12, 127–128whakapapa (ancestral connections) in

indigenous social work framework, 40, 55

whānau (family) in indigenous social work framework, 40

White, Sue, 29–30, 73, 80“wicked” social problems, 21, 67, 81,

122, 125Williams, Keanu, 79Williams, Paul, 127, 128Wilson, Jill, 109Winefield, Helen, 148

women, 10, 13–15, 19Wood, David, 104Wood, Gale Goldberg, 93Woodhouse, David, 21Woodhouse, Tom, 149work-family conflict, 145workplace conflict, 142workplace stress, 5, 141–153, 172

burnout and, 144, 146dealing with overload of, 143–145definition of stress, 142–143demand-control-support model of,

143, 144empathy for clients, 141, 145–146from ethical dilemmas, 146lack of resources in social services,

142person-environment fit model of, 144support in easing, 141, 144, 152from workplace violence, 147

workplace violence, 5, 146–151Worsley, Aidan, 57

Young, Sue, 121–122, 123, 125–130, 134, 135, 137

Zapf, Dieter, 142