Banks (1995) has provided a thorough review of the values underlying different theories and perspectives which have been promoted in social work, and their compatibility with the stated values of social work. In her analysis, most of the knowledge (theories, models and techniques) proposed for social work do not fit easily with the values of social work, as the former
‘tend to presuppose a view of human thought and behaviour as causally determined – by unconscious psychological factors, by natural instincts, the social environment or by social and economic structures’ (p. 66)
and the latter are ‘based on the notion of the user as a person who is free to make choices and to determine her or his action according purposes and goals’ (p. 66).
She suggests that this lack of fit occurs for three reasons:
▪firstly because clients are usually people experiencing difficulty and so can be viewed as temporarily less capable of rational decision-making than those not experiencing difficulties;
▪secondly because of the structures within which social workers operate such as legal requirements, agency policies, time and resource constraints, and bureaucratic procedures; and ▪thirdly because the preoccupation with establishing its place and status as a profession has
privileged positivistic rather than humanistic approaches. Banks concludes that
‘the theories and perspectives which are closest to the traditional social work values – the humanist, and to some extent, the cognitive – are both under-developed as comprehensive theories for social work practice’ (p. 61).
The humanistic perspective based on the work of Rogers (1957), emphasises the importance of the relationship forged between worker and client. The “core conditions” of empathy, unconditional positive regard and a non-judgemental stance are seen to fit with social work values of self-
determination, acceptance and respect for the individual. Banks suggests that the humanistic approach is not more widely developed as a comprehensive approach for social work because
… the location of social workers in bureaucratic agencies with social control functions is not conducive to the approach of humanist therapies where users are in control of the exploration and the worker has a non-directive role. (p. 60)
Cognitive approaches, which are concerned with people’s thinking, which assume that people’s behaviour is directed by thought appear to have gained more favour among social work practitioners. When combined with humanistic elements, cognitive approaches are seen to be congruent with the values of self-determination and the enhancement of functioning.
Payne (1991) concurs with this view of the consonance between cognitive/humanist approaches and social work values. Cognitive approaches in his view offer
… a useful way of understanding social work in a way that emphasises clients’ rational capacity to manage their own lives, and enhances that capacity with clear and well-tried techniques. Allied with humanist views of the process and related values which respect and involve clients, cognitive approaches … retain many of social work’s basic caring values within a framework of effective action. (Payne, 1991: 200)
SFT as a practice method has been considered to fall within the cognitive-behaviourist field, although as already noted others have variously viewed it as social constructivist or humanist/existential in nature. There is a possibility that SFT might appeal to different constituencies of social workers depending on how it is perceived. My study will examine how SFT is perceived and which features are identified and emphasised by practitioners, in other words: what ideas, concepts, and values do they take from SFT?
Parton and O’Byrne (2000) have recently argued for a re-conceptualisation of social work, as neither technical-rational, nor reflective-practice endeavours, but as a practical-moral enterprise. Emphasising the value-laden and ambiguous nature of social work, they maintain that constructionist approaches to practice (including SFT and Narrative approaches) provide the most hopeful bases for constructing new practice theories, because ‘Far from denying the ethical and moral dimensions of the work, it makes them central’ (p. 178).
This view however, is very different from the origins of SFT69 which in its initial conceptualisation as a framework for practice in therapeutic settings, made no attempt to engage overtly with the contested and ambiguous nature of the helping enterprise or to examine the power relations between helper and helped. This point will be elaborated in the next chapter on SFT.
69
The same cannot be said however of Narrative therapy, which has been identified as an ‘exemplar of attempts at Foucauldian therapy …[and] which follows Foucault in suggesting that most people’s stories draw on the dominant discourse’ (Foote & Frank, 1999: 177).
Parton and O’Byrne’s ‘constructive social work’ places morality at the centre of the social work enterprise and draws on SFT and narrative approaches to create the notion of the practitioner as an actor in the process, who does not deny issues of power relations and oppression, but who
… continually problematises and questions what is taken for granted and hence tries to open up creative ways of thinking and acting. The focus is on the human being’s continual attempt to make sense of and change the world and the central role played in this by talk and language. The active agency of the individual in their social/relational contexts is prioritised. (p. 178)
The development of this theory is relatively recent. Its appearance signals the impact and the increasing centrality of social constructionist/ constructivist ideas for the profession in these times.