Social Work Theory and Methods Comparison Table



Social Work Theory and Methods Comparison Table

|Theory |Key Concepts |Advantages |Limitations |Situations where this may be useful |

|Systems Theory |People are not isolated individuals but |Emphasis on changing environments rather |Does not explain why things happen or | |

| |operate as part of wider networks or |than individuals. |give guidance about how to act to bring | |

| |"systems" |Focus on patterns rather than "cause and |about change. | |

| |Systems may be informal (e.g. family or |effect" – allows for different ways of |May overemphasise "bigger picture" at the| |

| |friends), formal (e.g. clubs, support |getting to the desired outcome. |expense of details. | |

| |groups) or public (schools, hospitals) |Sees worker as part of a system of change|Values maintenance and integration over | |

| |Difficulties may arise if there is a lack|rather than solely responsible – may lend|conflict – may not explicitly challenge | |

| |of fit between the person and the systems|itself to multi-disciplinary work. |inequality. Does not encourage challenge | |

| |they operate within. | |of oppressive systems. | |

| |Systems can be employed to support the | | | |

| |service user to achieve change. | | | |

|Ecological Approach |Germain and Gitterman – "Life model" |Acknowledgement of interrelationship |As above. | |

| |(1980 / 1996) -people are interdependent|between person and environment. | | |

| |with each other and their environment – |Consideration of a range of resources to | | |

| |each influences the other over time. |support people – both internal and | | |

| |People move through their own unique life|external. | | |

| |course and may encounter "stressors" – | | | |

| |some of which may make them feel they | | | |

| |cannot cope. | | | |

| |People employ coping mechanisms and draw | | | |

| |on resources in the environment, social | | | |

| |networks and inner resources. | | | |

|Task Centred Approach |Brief work within explicit time limits |Clear and straightforward |Not effective where there are longer-term| |

| |Collaborative approach between worker and|Short timescale may help people feel more|psychological issues | |

| |service user – based on a contract. |committed |Not effective where service user doesn’t | |

| |Systematic work |Well supported by research |accept the right of the agency to be | |

| |Includes some behavioural ideas but |Service users supported to take control |involved. | |

| |mainly a cognitive approach |of own life. |May oversimplify issues people face | |

| |Usual to take action to get what you want|Can increase service user's coping skills|Some people may be too overwhelmed by the| |

| |Action guided by beliefs about self and |to deal with issues in the future. |issues they face to have the energy to | |

| |world |Strengths based approach which assumes |address them. | |

| |Time-limits help motivate service users |that service users can overcome problems |Does not really address power | |

| |People may “get stuck” if they have to |with the right support. |differentials between service user and | |

| |deal with a certain issue over and over | |worker. | |

| |Problems defined as “unsatisfied wants" | |May not address structural issues of | |

| | | |power and oppression | |

|Crisis Intervention |Brief intervention – deals with immediate|Help people to deal with major events or |May not help people who experience | |

| |issues rather than longer term problems |life transitions |“continual crises” | |

| |Based on ego-psychology and |Can incorporate other theories – |Does not address issues around poverty or| |

| |cognitive-behavioural models – serious |solution-focussed / cognitive-behavioural|social exclusion | |

| |events have an impact on the way people |Time-limited and task-focussed. | | |

| |think about themselves and their | | | |

| |emotional reactions | | | |

| |Assumes we live in “steady state” – able | | | |

| |to cope with change | | | |

| |Crises upset the steady state and provide| | | |

| |opportunity to improve skills / risk of | | | |

| |failure | | | |

| |Period of disorganised thinking / | | | |

| |behaving | | | |

| |Crises can reawaken unresolved issues | | | |

| |from the past but offer a chance to | | | |

| |correct non-adjustment to past events. | | | |

|Cognitive-behavioural approach / Rational|Rather than being an "insight based |Many empirical studies to suggest |Directive approach | |

|Emotive Behaviour Therapy |therapy" it uses techniques from |effectiveness (although evidence around |Starts from the assumption of deficit, ie| |

| |behaviourism, social learning theory and |degree of effectiveness is disputed.) |the service user is lacking something. | |

| |cognitive theory. |Can be used to support service users to |Requires a high level of knowledge and | |

| |Based on the assumption that our |increase their problem solving skills and|skill to apply. | |

| |thoughts, beliefs, images and attitudes |coping skills. |Focussed on the presenting issues rather | |

| |influence our behaviour and if these are |Effective over a wide range of issues. |than addressing causes. | |

| |changed, our behaviour will change. | |"Much behaviour may be perceived to be | |

| |"Self-talk" reinforces irrational | |emotionally driven and irrational, when | |

| |thinking. | |it represents.. a rational response to | |

| |Involves identifying and reframing | |very upsetting and disturbing | |

| |unhelpful beliefs. Worker teaches service| |experiences. (Lindsay, 2009) | |

| |user to challenge own beliefs. | |Doesn't take account of socio-economic | |

| |Can involve modifying behaviour using a | |factors. | |

| |system of rewards. | | | |

| |Use of ABC system – activating event – | | | |

| |belief – consequence and Ellis (1962) | | | |

| |extends to DEF – Dispute beliefs, replace| | | |

| |beliefs with Effective rational belief, | | | |

| |describe the Feelings which will be the | | | |

| |result. | | | |

|Motivational Interviewing |Applied form of CBT, developed by Miller |Accepts change must come from intrinsic |Usage and research around effectiveness | |

| |and Rollnick (1991, 2002) defined as "a |motivation and cannot be forced upon |have been largely around addictive | |

| |person-centred directive method for |people. |behaviours | |

| |enhancing an intrinsic motivation to |Supports people to explore their | | |

| |change by exploring and resolving |ambivalence around change. | | |

| |ambivalence." |Accepts that people may "lapse" but this | | |

| |Worker adopts an empathic and |is part of learning process. | | |

| |non-confrontational approach but worker | | | |

| |is directive. | | | |

| |Worker is alert to language person uses | | | |

| |and looks for language of change. | | | |

| |Worker provides education / information | | | |

| |about situation the service user is in | | | |

| |(e.g. effects of smoking / drinking | | | |

| |alcohol / taking drugs etc) | | | |

| |Worker encourages service user to list | | | |

| |benefits and costs of lifestyle and | | | |

| |alternative lifestyles | | | |

| |Explore barriers to goals | | | |

| |Reframe past events – focus on more | | | |

| |positive aspects. | | | |

| |Supported by an understanding of the | | | |

| |cycle of change (Prochaska and DiClemente| | | |

| |1986) [Pre-contemplation / contemplation | | | |

| |/ decision / active changes / maintenance| | | |

| |/ lapse. | | | |

|Solution-Focussed Approach |Cognitive approach |Co-operative therapy with a wide |May not fit with agency's own procedures | |

| |Focus on understanding solutions rather |application |May not be suitable for people who have | |

| |than on problems |Emphasis on listening to the service |difficulty responding to questions | |

| |Originates from Milwaukee Centre for |user’s story |Feminist critique of language being | |

| |Brief Therapy |Seek solutions with the service user’s |constructed by men therefore language not| |

| |Post-modern therapy based on theories of |life |reflecting women’s experience. | |

| |language and meaning. |Can fit with anti-oppressive practice and|Approach of understanding solution | |

| |Uses knowledge of service users |be empowering. |without understanding problem could be | |

| |Avoids diagnostic labelling – considers |Least intrusive – takes easiest route to |misunderstood | |

| |this disempowering |solutions |Focus on behaviour and perception rather | |

| |Focus on difference and exceptions |Reduces risk of "dependency" on worker. |than feelings may limit efficacy. | |

| |Person is not the problem |Optimistic approach which assumes change |May not be effective with people in | |

| |Assessment based on strengths not |is possible. |crisis or people with very low | |

| |deficits |Time limited. |self-esteem who may not accept that they | |

| |Talking can construct experience | |have strengths and skills. | |

| |Distinction between “problems” and | | | |

| |“unhappy situations.” Problems can be | | | |

| |addressed, “unhappy situations” have to | | | |

| |be coped with. | | | |

| |Encourages sense of “personal agency.” | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

|Person Centred Approach |Based on the work of Carl Rogers |Allows people to find their own way in |Role of SW may not allow for | |

|(nb different to Person-Centred Care) |Sets out the principles of empathy, |their own time. |non-directive approach. Not a | |

| |congruence and unconditional positive |Values all forms of experience. |time-limited approach. | |

| |regard as necessary in the helping |Resists temptation to criticise people. |Difficult to apply if service user not | |

| |relationship. |Emphasis on building an equal and |motivated to engage. | |

| |Non-directive approach |meaningful working relationship with |Focuses on individual change rather than | |

| |Based on the idea that everyone has the |service users. |societal factors, although allows | |

| |capacity to develop and grow. |Widely applicable across service user |individuals to express their own goals | |

| | |groups. |which may not be the agenda of mainstream| |

| | |Affirms the dignity and worth of all |society. | |

| | |people | | |

|Psychosocial Model |Based on the idea that people have inner |Can help with recurring emotional |Focussed on a medical model of individual| |

| |worlds and outer realities. |problems |pathology. Tends to ignore issues of | |

| |Certain events remind us of past events |Way of understanding seemingly |power and oppression. | |

| |we have tried to block out. |"irrational" behaviour |Social workers act as | |

| |Events can take on greater emotional |Emphasises the importance of |"mini-psychoanalysts" – use of clinical | |

| |significance. |self-awareness. |jargon. | |

| |People develop in a series of stages and |Influenced a listening, accepting |Tendency to focus on cause and effect. | |

| |"faulty personality development" in |attitude in social workers |Can lead to service users being labelled | |

| |childhood can affect our responses later |People can be empowered by insight into |– "inadequate", "narcissistic", | |

| |in life. |what is going on within themselves and |"manipulative", "resistant" and can lead | |

| |Draws on "personality theory" – id, ego, |between themselves and the outside world.|to victim blaming. | |

| |superego and looks at defence mechanisms.| |May not be culturally appropriate – based| |

| |Considers "defence mechanisms" we deploy | |on valuing self-growth and self-awareness| |

| |to protect the ego. | |which are not norms shared across all | |

| | | |cultures. | |

|Recovery Model |Model used in Mental Health services |Individuals viewed as experts in their |Can challenge authority of medical | |

| |which emphasises recovery rather than |own situation. |profession and thus not be accepted / | |

| |illness. |Positive approach which attempts to give |implemented in some MH services. | |

| |Recovery does not necessarily mean being |control back to the person. |Currently mainly used in MH services – | |

| |"symptom-free" but regaining a sense of | |but could have broader applicability. | |

| |control and purpose | | | |

| |Not being defined by a label or | | | |

| |diagnosis. | | | |

| |Recognises strengths of the individual. | | | |

| |Open to possibilities for the future – | | | |

| |return to employment or education. | | | |

|Narrative Approach |SW encourages the person to describe |Can help people understand the pressures |SWs may see the discussion as "rambling" | |

| |their life in their own words. |they have faced and the impact of |or "off the point" and try to cut off the| |

| |Opportunity to tell their story, an in |discrimination and oppression. |person's narrative. | |

| |the process define identity. |Can help people make sense of change and |The person or their family may ask for a | |

| |SW can support the person to feel in |adjust to new situations. |"solution" and not see the value in the | |

| |control of the narrative and draw their | |approach. | |

| |attention to the possibility of a | | | |

| |different narrative for the future. | | | |

Key References

Coulshed, V; Social Work Practice; 2nd ed (1991) Macmillan, Basingstoke and London.

Lindsay, T (ed) ; Social Work Intervention; (2009) Learning Matters Ltd, Exeter.

Maclean, S and Harrison, R: Social Work Theory;(2008); Kirwan Maclean Associates, Rugeley.

Milner, J and O’Byrne; P: Assessment in Social Work; (1998) Macmillan; London and Basingstoke.

Payne, M; Modern Social Work Theory; 3rd ed (2005) Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke & New York.

Trevithick, P; Social Work Skills, A Practice Handbook; 1st ed (2000) OU Press, Buckingham & Philadelphia

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download