generic n method apporach

8/6/2019 Generic n Method Apporach

1/9


2/9

Developing Complementarity betweenGeneric and Methods Approaches to

Social Work PracticeAn Exploration of Some Problems in CurriculumDesign.RICHARD J. ROBERTS*DIANE M. ZULFACAR*

This article explores some of the problems associated with developing socialwork practice curriculum based upon generic

1

and methods approaches. Thearticle explores important dynamics which influenced the design of the socialwork practice curriculum during the years 1978 to 1982 at the School of SocialWork, University of New South Wales. A critique of generic and methodsapproaches as a basis for curriculum design is developed. It is concluded thatbecause of the limitations of either one of these approaches alone, they need to

be used in a complementary way. This position was first asserted by HarriettBartlett in 1970, however subsequent literature gives no indication of thishaving been done up until now.

INTRODUCTION

The School of Social Work,University of New South Wales,offers a four year full timeprogramme for the degree of

Bachelor of Social Work

2

. Asummary of the content of the firsttwo years of the practice sequencebetween the years 1978 and 1982 isprovided in Table 1. In 1978 and1979 the first two years were basedupon a generic perspective alone, butfrom 1980, the second year wasrevised to provide an introduction toeach of the four orthodox methodsof practice3. The process that ledfrom antagonism to an eventualsynthesis of generic and methodsperspectives in our School's

curriculum design is described. Itshould be noted that the authorsheld major responsibility for thesubjects which are described andcritiqued in this paper. It should be

*Both authors are Lecturers in theSchool of Social Work, University ofNew South Wales. They are bothPh.D. students in thatSchool.

noted as well, that during thisperiod, students continued to studyselected methods in their final year.However the content and process ofthis final practice year are not dealtwith in this paper.

THE FIRST YEAR OF THEPRACTICE SEQUENCE

In 1978 the School decided toexpand its teaching of genericapproaches4 and to test and developfurther practice models based uponemerging 'generic theory.'

The Strengths in using 'GenericTheory' for Curriculum Design(1) It introduced students to a

perspective of practice which wasneither bound to orthodox methodsparameters nor fields or settings ofpractice. This allowed students to bepresented with the widest possiblerange of aetiology and remedieswhen making assessments,considering points for intervention,and deciding upon technologies ofpractice to meet the goals set.3 Forsome time writers had been critical

of the artificial boundaries drawn bythe methods6 where the dangerexisted of having the methodspreference of the practitionerdetermine both the nature andtreatment of the problem. Likewise asocial worker educated primarily

within the mode of a particularagency setting was in danger ofimposing existing boundaries ofagency function and practitionerroles. This could prematurelyconstrain the scope of assessmentand subsequent intervention.

(2) Most generic frameworks ofpractice are described in textsclaiming their usefulness for thebeginning student7. These texts oftenset out to link the explicatedconceptual framework to the

pragmatics of practice, to link classroom teaching to teaching in thefield

8

, and to take a 'strength-oriented' or 'problem-solving'approach' in which pathology is notnecessarily seen to be within theperson or group requestingassistance10.

(3) The authors claim theirframeworks to be useful devices forlinking the various socio-behaviouraltheories ('foundation theories' or'theories for practice') to a 'practicetheory'11. The use of an 'ecologicalperspective' 12 for example, requiresthe student to link the theoriesstudied in other subjects to themodus operandi of social workpractice when assessing andintervening. It is noted by Bartlettand some subsequent writers, thatunless theories for practice areclearly linked to a social work frameof reference, then there is the dangerof social work being skewed in thedirection of another discipline andhence losing its own identity 13.

(4) The frameworks provide tools forstudents to differentiate clearly thevarious systems with which theywork, for example, 'client', 'agency','action', 'target'," 'problem identification', and 'professional'

15

. Such aconceptualisation helps in thedefining of 'client' and 'non-client'systems. It enables a differentiationbetween 'client' and 'target' wherebythe person or group requesting

Australian Social Work December, 1986, Vol. 39, No.4 27


3/9

assistance is not necessarily the pointwhere change is required in order tomeet the goals of intervention.16 Itassists in the identification of thevarious parts of the action system,and encourages an assessment of theagency itself in terms of how it is

able to alleviate or indeed how itmay be causing or exacerbating theproblem17.

(5) Most frameworks, at least in theirrhetoric, claim to be concerned with'public issues' as well as the 'privatetroubles' of individual clients". Theparadigm developed by Middleman

and Goldberg19

is a clear example ofthe 'equality of attention' requiredfor both private troubles and publicissues as well as the importance ofwork both with clients and workwith others on behalf of clients 20.Targets for change could thus

include not only clients but otherindividuals of significance to theclients , representatives oforganisations having control overresources, agency administratorswith responsibility for deciding andinterpreting policy and so on.(6) Some frameworks provide a

repertoire of skills which areconsidered necessary for a widerange of practice. One writerattempted to develop a concept of'generic skills.'

21

The range of skillsrequired to intervene in a variety ofsystems goes far beyond skills

considered necessary to bring aboutchanges through the traditional'helping' (usually 'consensual')relationship of worker andindividual client. In addition to theorthodox skills of the 'helpingrelationship'

22

students are requiredto learn a repertoire of skills to deal

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF CONTENTS OF B.S.W. PRACTICE CURRICULUM

1978-1982

SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE IA SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE IIA

19 78 Session 1

Generic themes covering historical context ofpractice, primary & secondary settings,practice boundaries, knowledge & values, self-awareness, effective communication skills(verbal, non-verbal & written).

(1 hr lecture, 2hrs skills lab., 1 hr seminar).

Session 1

Knowledge and skills of roles of supporter,adviser, therapist, caretaker, researcher,administrator, consultant, enabler, advocate,broker, mediator, educator, co-ordinator.

(2hrs lecture; plus time scheduled for Session2 Taskforce preparation).

Session 2

General tasks of assessing, planning,intervening, re-evaluation, termination.Introduction to 5 frameworks (Bartlett, Baker,Pincus & Minahan, Loewenberg, Compton &Galaway).

(1 hr lecture, 1'/zhrs seminar, 1 hr/fortnightskills).

Session 2

Students presented reports of "taskforce"(self-learning groups). Topics could be on anyaspect of practice, either focussed onparticular agency or setting, selected socialproblem, or application of a technique ormodel.

(2hr lecture/workshop).

19 79 Similar to 19 78 , but frameworks reduced to 4(overview of 2, 2 in detail).

Similar to 1978.

19 80 "Similar to 197 8 but less time on genericthemes & more time on effectivecommunication skills, & task of assessing.

Frameworks reduced to 3: Baker, Compton &Galaway, and Pincus & Minahan.

Introduction to casework, group work,community work, and administration. Eachmethod studied in terms of beginning, middle,

and ending phases. No linkage with genericperspectives.

1981 Similar to 1980. Instead of study offrameworks in toto, selected concepts fromBaker, Pincus &Minahan, Compton &Galaway, & Middleman & Goldberg.

Methods presented as complementary togeneric perspectives. Methods taught not asdiscrete but each viewed in terms of itscontribution to social work practice as awhole. In addition, selected skills taught.Examination of ideological underpinnings ofpractice.

198 2 Similar to 1981. Similar to 1981.

28 Australian Social Work December, 1986, Vol. 39, No.4


4/9

with non-clients at both micro andmacro levels involving not onlyconsensual but also bargaining andconflict relationships

23

. Such skillsare necessary in acting as anadvocate or mediator for a client orclient group

24

. As well as a range of

interpersonal skills, we believe arepertoire of skills relating toeffective mass communication,working in teams, working in formalmeetings, inter alia, follow byimplication from the 'broad canvas'of possible roles and tasks for theworker.

Problems in using 'Generic Theory'for Curriculum Design

While the reasons stated above

provide a sound basis for designingcurriculum using genericapproaches, the pragmatics ofteaching this material to undergraduate students gave rise to ourrecognition of a number ofimportant issues. Our experience ledto modifications in the way materialwas taught and this is reflected inTable 1. The most significant issuesleading to curriculum modificationswere as follows:

(1) Conceptual appreciation of the practice theory versus utility forpractice

This centred around the need toconsider: (a) the frameworks asdevelopments of practice theory andthe contributions of this class ofwriting to practice, and (b) how theframeworks, as a whole or in part,could be used in practice.

The number of frameworks tobe studied caused considerableconsternation. The problem ofdeciding how many frameworks to

study, and which ones, was madedifficult by the fact that eachframework had its own strengthsand weaknesses. No one frameworkwas considered adequate to bestudied alone, thus the selection wasbased partly on the complementarityof different generic frameworks andtheir utility for practice. Initially fiveframeworks were prescribed25 withthe expectation that students would

have a working knowledge of thefive and a more detailed knowledgeof two.

In retrospect this was a conceptual overload for students takingtheir first course in practice. Thisdifficulty was exacerbated by the

high level of generality andabstraction of the frameworks.Teaching proceeded along adeductive mode

26

in order toestablish a conceptual map ofpractice.

Over time the number offrameworks prescribed for study wasreduced to a point where only the'useful parts' of several frameworkswere examined and where nodetailed knowledge or critique of anyone framework was required. This

modification was justified because ofthe difficulties students had inhandling such a level of conceptualisation at this stage of the course,and the reported difficulties inattempting to apply this broadapproach to the first fieldplacement

27

.

Two major difficulties with thischange were noted. Firstly, the

justification of the selection of'parts'of frameworks considered 'useful'was problematic. Secondly, to dateno systematic study has been made

of this class of writing and theconnections these frameworks havewith each other

28

. A more seriousdifficulty was the limited critiquewhich could be made of any oneframework when it was not beingexamined in toto.

(2) Conceptual understandingversus skills development

An issue arose in deciding thebalance of time to be spent on (a)developing theore t ica l and

conceptual understanding, and (b)developing basic skills to apply theframeworks , par t icular ly inpreparing students for their first fieldplacement. A related problem wasthe selection of particular skills to betaught. The broad parameters set bythese frameworks required studentsto learn both micro skills of workingwith individuals and small groups aswell as macro skills of intervention

with large groups, communities, andorganisations.

How many of these skills couldbe effectively taught given the timeconstraints was a topic of constantdebate. The question was posed as towhether students should be

introduced to a broad range of skillsat a relatively superficial level orallowed to consolidate and developconfidence in performing a selectednumber. A further component in thedebate was a demarcation matter,viz. who should take primaryresponsibility for skills development:class teachers or field instructors?

(3) Deductive versus Inductiveteaching methodologies

The generic approaches were

presented as over-arching conceptualframeworks and were thus suitablefor deductive use

29

. The need tocomplement deduct ive withinductive teaching strategies becameincreasingly apparent because, (a)this was thefirst subject of a practicesequence, (b) students were mainlyyoung and without employmentexperience

50

, (c) the frameworks conceptualised social work practice at ahigh order of generality. This wasmost required when dealing with thetask of assessing, planning and

intervening. Without linking thesegeneral tasks to specific examplesand without linking them to specificsocial contexts (both socio-politicalas well as agency), then the taskswere seen as far too abstract and usein practice difficult, if notimpossible.

(4) Theories for Practice andPractice Theory

As noted previously theseframeworks claimed to link together

a range of theories from the socio-behavioural sciences in order toinform the practitioner how to linkthis to social work's own purposesand technologies. The biopsycho-social model is one such example".Given the need for social workpractice to draw on a range ofrelevant underpinning theory, such amodel is useful. However in terms oftheory construction such attempts



5/9

are very crude because while theypostulate the relevance of a range oftheory, they do not indicate how thepractitioner can selectively use thistheory. Such models (as the bio-psychosocial model) do not addressthe problems of theory compatibility

where a range of theory is invoked,they have no predictive capacity,and have very little capability ofprescription. In other words the userhas to make his or her own selectionof theory, as no explicit criteriarelating to social work purposes isprovided. The choice is often seenonly in terms of eclecticism, or asone writer describes it the 'supermarket' principle32. -

Some frameworks invoke acrude form of social systems

analysis

33

. However, this form ofanalysis provides no criteria forchoice for substantive theoryselection, no criteria for choice ofwhich variables on a case are moreimportant than others (afterpartialisation), and no predictionconcerning likely outcomes. Whilesocial systems analysis is widely usedin social work practice, its benefit tosocial work is still being debated. 34.

The use of generic frameworksand social systems analysis increasesthe number of variables to be takeninto account. While this increasesthe social worker's options it doesmake the analysis more complex

33

.For the experienced practitioner thiscan be handled by an arbitrarylimitation of the variables (both interms of case material and possibletheories of explanation) resultingfrom his or her own practice andpersonal ideologies, personal biassesrelating to the purposes of socialwork, agency opportunities andconstraints, or merely selective

perception or convenience. Theproblem however in our programme,was that the student had little or noexperience in handling social workproblems. The student had nopractice experience on which to rely.How does resorting to practicetheory help? This merely says choosevariables which are 'relevant',choose theories that are more likelyto achieve the goals than others.

How does the student know this?Thus while the generic

approaches encourage the student tolook further and further afield forcause and effect, they may notprovide the necessary conceptualtools or the technology for pre

scribing a set of directions whichcould be followed rationally in orderto achieve particular goals. Webelieve that such a stage of practicetheory development is some time inthe future.

(5) NomenclatureWhen the practice curriculum

was originally designed it wasbelieved that there existed a class offrameworks with the same purposeeven if this was operationalised in

different ways. One of the problemshowever was the confusion in thenomenclature used. Such terms asgeneric, unitary, generaliseecological, systems, common base,integrated, are to be found in theliterature. Some writers treat thenomenclature as synonymous

36

.However on face value the wordsdenote different meanings. The wordunitary, for example, is particularlyproblematic because it conjures upnotions ofunity, oneness, consensus,hegemony. Pincus and Minahan

have been accused of postulatingtheir approach as a supra-methotf

1

aposition they emphatically reject38.This confusion of nomenclature hasled to confusion in terms ofexpectations. Because no systematicanalysis has been made of theseframeworks to date, one does notreally know how much theconfu sion rest s wit h thenomenclature alone, and how muchrests with the substantive content ofthe frameworks.

When the results of suchanalysis are available, the use ofthese frameworks as a class might beseen as unjustified if substantialdifferences emerge between them.

(6) Lack of explicit ideologyFew of the frameworks deal

explicitly with the ideology ofpractice. This proves a weakness inassessing each framework in its own

right as well as in attempting to useeach in practice. If social work hasindeed to deal with the interface ofperson and environment thensubstantial treatment of the socialcontext of practice is imperative. Inorder to give direction to the

technologies of practice, thepurposes of practice need developingand justifying and these, ofnecessity, involve a treatment of thesociological and ideological contextof social problems.

The omission of most frameworks to deal with this issue has ledto criticisms of their being 'vacuous','ideologically conservative', and'casework recycled.'

3

'While other practice

frameworks neglect these questions,

these omissions are particularlyserious with regard to the genericapproaches, because they do claim tolink the individual person andenvironment, the private and thepublic. It is not possible to present atechnology as if it was neutral. Aprofession which claims to beinvolved in social change, in thedistribution and redistribution ofresources, and access to power overdecision making, cannot prescribe ameans without considering a justification for a particular end.

In terms of curriculum theseissues were introduced while makinga critique of the frameworks, eitherindividually or collectively. Such acritique was made difficult by thestudents' lack of knowledge aboutother (non generic) approaches tosocial work. It was often reported bypractitioners that the genericapproaches made sense to themhaving already acquired a knowledge of other (usually methods)approaches. It was very difficult for

students to appreciate the relativestrengths and weaknesses in theabsence of comparative data. Thedilemma in terms of curriculumdesign was to present a detailedcritique and hence 'overload' thecontent of the subject; or utilise'useful' parts of frameworks withouta more detailed critique. The trendwas to the latter given a mountingpressure from students and field



6/9

instructors for more 'skills' and'techniques' rather than 'theory'.

(7) Application of generic frameworks in the field

Use of generic frameworks isnot commonplace in Australia at thepresent time and therefore fewopportunities exist for students toobserve and participate in this formof practice. Most typicallypractitioners align themselves withone or more of the orthodoxmethods of practice having adaptedit to suit a specific setting. Acommon pattern of practice centreson the use of selected socio-behavioural theory (e.g. a psycho-dynamic approach) or a selectedspecialisation within social work (e.g.

a family the rap y). Ot herspecialisations are in terms ofagency, e.g. hospital social work,social work in local government.With these 'specialisations' mostpractitioners, as field instructors,expect students to develop anunderstanding of and skills related tothat specialised form of practice.Most students, especially in the earlystages of a practice sequence, find itdifficult to 'bridge the gap' betweenspecialised modes of practice: to linkmicro and macro skills; to link

clinical practice with its socialcontext.

Given that this practice subjectcoincided with the student's firstfield placement, considerable dissonance occurred where the studenthad been prepared with a broadrange of skills, albeit at arudimentary level, and where thefield instructor .expected a higherlevel of consolidation in a specialisedarea of practice.

Attempts were made to

acquaint field instructors with thebasic tenets of these 'new'approaches and the educationalobjectives. However these attemptswere severely hampered because ofthe organisational arrangementswithin the School which minimisedcontact between classroom teachers,the Field Education Unit within theSchool, and with agency instructorsresponsible for student supervision.

THE SECOND YEAR OFTHE PRACTICE SEQUENCE

Generic approaches and Methodsas antagonistic

In 1978 and 1979 the secondyear of the practice sequence furtherdeveloped a generic approach andthis was intended as preparation fora methods specialisation in the finalyear. From 1980 the second yearwas changed to include anintroduction to each of the fourorthodox methods or practice. Areview of the reasons for this changehighlights some of the strengths andweaknesses of both generic andmethods approaches.

(1) Early reliance on Role

Conceptualisation of Practice(1978-79)

Initially the content of thesecond year was based upon a roleconceptualisation of social workpractice. More specifically, thecontent was based on Baker's Multi-role Practitioner Model". Basicallythe model sets out thirteen roles('supporter', 'adviser', 'therapist','care-taker', 'researcher', 'administrator' , 'consultant' , 'enabler' ,'advocate', 'broker', 'mediator','educator', 'coordinator') and eight

general tasks of practice (assessing,planning, intervening, reevaluating,recording, observing, listening,interacting). Each one of these roleswas studied in turn and some skillsrelevant to each role taught.

However this formulation ofpractice can be challenged on anumber of grounds. The derivationof the roles of practice forms part ofseveral conceptualisations of socialwork practice. The number of rolesdelineated vary from three to fifty

two41

. Writers are not explicit abouthow these roles are formulated:whether by empirical research or bydeductive reasoning

42

. Such adiscrepancy in the number of rolesdescribed makes the use of a roleconceptualisation by itselfproblematic in curriculum design.

While some practitioners havereported the Multirole PractitionerModel as a useful device for

planning and sometimes justifyingintervention, its own lack of justification in terms of methodologyrenders it particularly difficult when

justifying curriculum content. Oneof its substantive weaknesses is itsfailure to link the roles of practice to

particular contexts. It is importantnot only that a variety of social workroles is acknowledged but that thecharacteristics of each role aredescribed. To do this one must linkthe roles to substantive theory, andthis will be influenced both by themore global purposes and goals ofsocial work practice as well as theinfluence of particular settings andcontexts of practice.

While Baker claims this modelmust be linked to his generic base 43,

this linkage is no more than nominal.There is no explication on how eachof the roles is substantively linked tothe generic base. For example, it isextremely difficult to apply the rolesofadvocate or mediator outside of aparticular context. What criteria, forexample, does a practitioner use todecide what or whose cause will beadvocated? The cause of onepotential client or client group maywell conflict with that of another.Thus who becomes the client? Inorder to make this decision one must

invoke an ideology. No assistancewill be found in this model in orderto link a role with a particularpurpose.

The roles in the MultirolePractitioner model are described as ifthe agency or social context are notimportant. While Baker and otherwriters maintain that more researchis needed on each of the roles inthemselves,

44

we believe that the useof any role conceptualisation in itspesent form has very limited use

until more substantive links can bemade to specific contexts andideologies of practice.

(2) Subsequent replacement of'Roles' by 'Methods' (1980)

Thus it was the difficultieswithin the generic approaches ingeneral and the MultirolePractitioner Model in particular inthe second year which led to the



7/9

substantial revision of the secondyear practice subject in 1980. Inaddition, because a very broad rangeof skills had been covered and notlinked specifically to any orthodoxapproach, methods teachers in thethird practice year found it very

difficult to build their teaching upona basis which was foreign to theirprevious experience.

The difficulty in accepting arelatively new practice foundation inthe first two years and appreciatingwhat knowledge and skills studentshad acquired, albeit in a differentform, cannot be divorced from thepolitics in the school at the time. Theintroduction of a 'new' (generic)form of practice teaching in the firsttwo years seemed to threaten the

position of the methods 'specialists'who had held substantial control ofpractice teaching in the school priorto 1978. Claims were made by somemembers of the 'methods faction'that students were not beingadequately prepared for theirmethods elective year.

The underlying conflictsbetween the 'generic' and 'methods'factions remained unaddressed andunresolved and hence an antagonismwas implicit in the 1980 revision offirst and second year practice

subjects. In 1980 there was virtuallyno linkage between the content ofthe first and second year practicecurricula and hence students tendedto forget or put aside the learningthey had acquired in the first year.There was no linkage betweengeneric and methods perspectives.As the methods material carried intothe next year, the assumption wasoften made that 'from now on' themethods material is important, andthe earlier generic material is not.

(3) Barriers to synthesis

Our experience leads us tobelieve it is essential that any studyof curriculum change take intoaccount not only the substantiveacademic arguments but also the'vested interests'

45

of the protagonistsof the different positions, the powerstructures, and the dynamics

operating within staff and studentpolitics.

It was our observation thatwithin the School the curriculumwas used as a vehicle for the

jockeying for power for variousmembers of staff. Some students

were easily drawn into this arena ofdebate. In most forums in whichthese issues were debated, it was ourobservation that substantive andrational argument was replaced bythe promotion of emotionallycharged presentations of viewpointsand 'personalities'. While thecomplexities of these aspects are notdeveloped further in this paper, toomit their influence from the processof curriculum change would be topresent a highly distorted picture

and one which suggested a solelyrational approach to curriculumchange.

Linked into these political considerations, and used to advantageby most factions from time to time,was the lack of an explicitlydeveloped set of objectives for theBachelor of Social Workprogramme. There has never beenagreement within the School aboutthe desired 'end products' of thecourse: no specification of types andlevels of competence in knowledgeand skills; no agreement as to howspecialised a graduate of the courseis or should be. The closest that theSchool came to such specificationwas contained within very generalstatements in the UniversityHandbook46. In the absence of suchagreement, specific objectives wereleft largely to individual lecturers coordinating individual subjects. Mostoften, staff factions tended to seetheir positions as mutually exclusiverather than as complementary in any

way.

Generic approaches and Methodsas Complementary

In 1981, the 'generic' rationaleof the first year and the 'methods'rationale of the second year weredeveloped as complementary ratherthan antag onist ic. Bartlett ' s

statement provided both impetusand rationale for this:

What is now needed for theprofession's forward movementis not to discard the method-and-skill model as a whole, butto carry over from it those

aspects that are contributing tothe strengths of social work andto include them in a newprofessional model. In this way,the concept of the skilledworker can take its proper placewithin a comprehensiveconcept of social work and itspractice. The method-and-skillmodel needs greater breadth,while the overall professionalmodel needs substance...4'.In 1981 concerted efforts were

made to integrate the materialtaught in the first two years of thepractice sequence in such a way thatthe content of the second year builtlogically on the content of the firstyear, and that these linkages weremade explicit to students. Essentiallythis was done by (i) beginning thesecond year with a review of themajor contributions of the genericapproaches, (ii) providing a rationalefor moving from generic to methodsmaterial, and (iii) indicating thepotential for utilising both generic

and methods approaches in acomplementary fashion in practice.A further significant change to thesecond year practice subject was theinclusion of material on ideology inrelation to practice.

A more detailed description ofeach of these modifications follows:

(1) Review of the major contributionsof generic approaches

Students were encouraged tosee the utility of these approaches

within the context of a critiquewhich had been developed in thefirst year. They were encouraged toappreciate that no one theory orconceptual framework was usuallyadequate for practice, and that mostapproaches had deficiencies. Theparticular contributions of thegeneric approaches wereemphasised, viz. their encouragement of practitioners to assess



8/9

situations in the broadest possibleway and to look for a broad range ofaetiology and points forintervention; the linkage between'private troubles' and 'public issues';and the importance of work donewith clients as well as with others on

behalf of clients.

(2) Rationale for moving fromgeneric to methods material

Once a decision has been madeabout where (what level) tointervene, a social worker needsspecific knowledge and skills relatedto how to intervene. It wasacknowledged that the conceptualisations of practice skills developedby generic writers are too abstractand general to be of immediate use

to undergraduate students. Theutility of orthodox methods theoryand skills was thus emphasisedbecause of its more specificdelineation. For example studentswere helped to consider a 'context'for social work roles: 'supporting'could be viewed as a generic skill,but it was important to differentiate'supporting' an individual client intaking a difficult action in relation toa significant personal relationship, incontrast to 'supporting' a social

action group in its efforts to confronta non-responsive local agency. Theapplication in practice of thesespecific roles was now linked with arange of supporting methodsliterature.

(3) Potential complementarity ofgeneric and methods approaches

An important reason forviewing generic and methodsapproaches as complementary is thatthere is insufficient time and

curriculum space to cover all aspectsof practice in the classroom.Important choices have to be madebetween breadth and depth incurriculum design.

While it is unrealistic to expectindividual social workers to be'expert' in all aspects of social workpractice, we believe that theprofession as a whole can be moreeffective in fulfilling its purposes

when individual social workersappreciate the links between theircontribution and the contributionsthat can be made by their colleagueswith different areas of expertise.Such an understanding of how the'parts' fit together to form the

'whole' of social work practice isfacilitated by generic conceptualisations. It is in taking this broadview that a social worker can decidenot only what he or she can do aboutparticular facets of a problemsituation (given his/her expertise andagency mandate), but also whatadditional aspects of the situationwarrant intervention by colleagueswith different expertise. Such anawareness of the extent andlimitations of one's own expertise,

and that of other colleagues withinthe profession, provides a basis forforming linkages for the effectiveutilisation of that collectiveexpertise.

A further requirement, if socialworkers are to complement eachother's practice, is not only expertisein one's own areas of specialisation,but also basic knowledge of whatother specialisations encompass.(Thus, for example, a caseworkerwho is sensitive to the structuralsocietal pressures that areimpingeing on his/her clients, needsto have a basic understanding ofwhat community workers might beable to do about such pressures.)

Such an understanding of thecomplementarity between genericand methods approaches led to anumber of specific learningobjectives in the second yearcurriculum. Thus by the end of thesecond year of the practice sequence,students were expected to have asolid awareness of the knowledge

and skill base of each method and tobe aware of the commonalities anddifferences between methods. As thestudents then moved into methodspecialisations of their own choice inthe final year, they did so with anunderstanding of how their ownprofessional practice could becomplemented by the practice ofsocial work colleagues with othertypes of expertise.

(4) Ideological underpinnings ofsocial work practice

It has already been pointed outthat while the generic modelsencourage social workers to thinkbroadly about possible levels andforms of intervention, they do so in

an ideological vacuum. In otherwords, they may not considerunderlying systems of values, beliefs,and assumptions that have aprofound influence on a socialworker's decision about where andhow to intervene in any givenpractice situation. As studentsprepare to make decisions aboutwhich practice options they willpursue from a wide range of possibilities, they require not only arepertoire of relevant skills, and an

awareness of complementary skillsthat other social workers maypossess, they also need someunderstanding of the ideologicalimplications of decisions they make.Thus it was considered that thematerial on ideology was animportant addition to the methodsmaterial in the second year. Thecontent included usages of'ideology'; notions that social workpractice could be 'politically neutral'were challenged; and in particularstudents were made aware of the

debate within the social workprofession triggered by the 'radical'writings of the 1970's". Theobjective was not so much toprovide a recipe for decidingamongst alternative possibilities forintervention, but to help studentsrecognize the major positions of thedebate and to increase the likelihoodthat, in making their own practicedecisions, they would do so on thebasis of a clear, explicit rationale.

CONCLUSIONS. ABEGINNING?

Processes of developing socialwork practice curricula andassociated problems are infrequentlypresented for public scrutiny inpublished form. By exposing boththe rational, historical, and theinterpersonal dynamics that have



9/9

operated in the development of oneSchool's practice curriculum, wehope to stimulate public debate onthe issues raised.

We are aware from ourpersonal observations that similarproblems have been experienced in

many social work schools in theUnited States of America and in theUnited Kingdom. Unless morearticles like this one are published,then curriculum design will remainin the domain of 'private geometry'of individual academics and Schoolsof Social Work.

REFERENCES AND ENDNOTES

1 . For consistency the word 'generic' is usedthroughout to refer to a class of writings variouslyreferred to as 'generic', 'unitary', 'integrated','generalisf, 'ecological', 'common base'. This classof writings is representative of conceptualframeworks developed by the following authors:

R. Baker, "Notes on a Conceptual Framework forUnitary Social Work Practice". International SocialWork, xi i i (4), 1980 , pp. 10 -25 .H. Bartlett, The Common Base of Social Work

Practice, N.A.S.W.. N.Y.. 19 70 .P. Boas & J. Crawley, Explor ations in Te ach ingGeneric Social Work Theory, P.IT . , Bundoora,Australia, 1975.B.R. Compton, & B. Gataway, Social WorkProcesses, Dorsey, Illinois, 1979.C.B. Germain & A. Gitterman, The Life Model ofSocial Work Practice, Columbia University Press,N.Y.. 1980.

H. Goldstein, Social Work Practice A UnitaryApproach, University Southern California,Columbia. 1973.

R.W. Klenk & R.M. Ryan, The Practice of SocialWork, Wadsworth. N.Y.. 19 74 .F. Loewenberg. Fundamentals of SocialIntervention, Columbia U.P., N.Y., 19 77 .

R. Middleman & G. Goldberg, Social ServiceDelivery A Structural Approach to Social WorkPractice, Columbia U.P., N.Y., 19 74 .A. Pincus & A. Minahan, Social Work Practice:Mode! and Method, Itasca. Illinois. 1973.M. Siporin, Introduction to Social Work Practice,Macmillan. N.Y., 19 75 .'Methods' refers to the four orthodox methods ofpractice: casework, group work, community work,and social work administration.

2. The B.S.W. programme is four years full time.Between 1978 and 1982 social work practice wastaught in the second, third, and fourth years. In thispaper the practice subjects will be referred to as

first, second, and third practice subjects.3. Casework, group work, community work, andsocial work administration.

4. Prior to 1978 the School had used the Pincus &Minahan text (op. cit.).5. R.J. Roberts. "Some Implications of UnitaryApproaches to Social Work Practice for CurriculumDesign," Contemporary Social Work Education,5(3) , 1982, pp . 245-246.

6. H. Bisno, "A Theoretical Framework for TeachingSocial Work Methods and Skills with ParticularReference to Undergraduate Social Welfare

Education," Journal of Education for Social Work,5(9), 1969, p .8.

7. See for example: F. Loewenberg, op. cit.; A.Pincus & A. Minahan, op. cit.; B.R. Compton & B.Galaway, op. cit.

8. F. Loewenberg, op. cit.9. B.R. Compton & B. Galaway, op. cit.

10 . A Pincus & A. Minahan, op. cit. p. 59 .11 . R. Baker, "Building and Implementing UnitarySocial Work Practice: A Personal Account,"Contemporary Social Work Education, 3(1),1980, p . 26.

12 . C.B. Germain & A. Gitterman. op. cit.13. H. Bartlett, op. cit. p. 71 .14. A. Pincus & A. Minahan. op. cit. Ch. 3.

15 . B.R. Compton & B. Galaway, op. cit.pp. 84 - 85 .16. A Pincus & A. Minahan, op. cit. pp. 56- 60 andpp. 64-68.

17 . ibid. pp. 54-56 and pp. 64-68.18 . W. Schwartz, "Private Troubles and PublicIssues: One Social Work Job or Two? Social

Welfare Forum, Columbia U.P., N.Y.. 19 69 .W. Schwartz, "Between Client and System: theMediating Function" in R. Roberts and H. Northern(eds.). Theories for Social Work with Groups,N.Y.. 1976.

19. R. Middleman, & G. Goldberg, op. cit.20. In order to avoid definitional problems of 'client'and 'non-client", Middleman & Goldberg use'sufferer' and "non sufferer'. While this is notwithout operational difficulties it does help todifferentiate that group of people who work onbehalf of others with problems.

2 1 . R. Baker. "Building and Implementing UnitarySocial Work Practice: A Personal Account", op. pit.22. See for example, G. Egan, The Skilled Helper,Brooks/Cole, Monterey. Calif., 1975, Stage I skills;A.W. Combs, D. C Avila, & W.W . Purkey, H elpin gRelationships Basic Concepts for the HelpingProfess ions, Allyn & Bacon. Boston. 19 7 1 .

C. Rogers, "The Characteristics of a HelpingRelationship," in D.C. Avila. A.W. Combs. & W.W.Purkey, The Helping Relationship Sourcebook,Allyn & Bacon, Boston. 1973, pp. 2-18.

23. A. Pincus & A. Minahan, op. cit. Ch.4, esp.pp. 76-80.

24 . R. Baker, "The Multirole Practitioner in theGeneric Orientation to Social Work Practice", Brit.J. Social Work, 6(3), 1976. pp. 327-352.

25. Baker. Loewenberg. Compton & Galaway.Pincus & Minahan, and Bartlett.

26 . H. Goldstein, "A Unitary Approach Implications for Education and Practice," in P.Parsloe ef a/. A Unitary Approach to Social WorkPractice Implications for Education andOrganization, School of Social Administration,University of Dundee. 1975, pp. 38ff.

27. First Placement commenced midway through

the first practice subject.

28 . This is a part of a Ph.D. thesis being written byRichard Roberts.29. H. Goldstein, "A Unitary Approach Implications for Education and Practice." op. cit.

30 . The highest proportion of students comedirectly from second ary school and are around 19years of age at this stage.

31 . R. Baker. "Towards Generic Social Work: aReview and Some Innovations," Brit. J. SocialWork, 5(2), 1975.R. Baker, "Exploring the Use of the Bio-

Psychosocial Model in One Unitary Framework forSocial Work Practice," unpublished paper,University of New South Wales , 1 98 0.R. Baker, "Notes on a Conceptual Framework forUnitary Social Work Practice," op. cit.

32. B. Sheldon, "Theory and Practice in SocialWork: A Re-examination of a TenuousRelationship." Brit. J. Social Work, 8(1), p.9.

33. R.J. Roberts, "Further Notes on a 'Systems'Analysis of Social Work Practice," Conte mpor arySocial Work Education, 4(3), 19 81 .

34 . ibid.35 . ibid. p. 224 and G. Drover & E. Schragge,"Systems Theory and Social Work Education: ACritique, Canadian J. of Social Work Education,3(2), pp . 29-30.

36 . For example, R. Baker, "Building andImplementing Unitary Social Work Practice: APersonal Account," op. cit. p. 29. For conveniencewe have treated a range of terminology assynonymous. We are aware however that this couldwell be challenged by a more systematicexamination of the nomenclature and its relation tothe different frameworks.

37 . R.J. Roberts. "Some Implications of UnitaryApproaches to Social Work Practice for CurriculumDesign," op. cit. pp. 246-247.38. A. Pincus & A. Minahan, op. cit. p. xiii.

39. See for example. W. Jordan, "Against theUnitary Approach," New Society, June. 19 77 .R. van Krieken, "Casework Recycled On RonBaker's 'The Interpersonal Process in GenericSocial Work'", Australian Social Work, 33(4),1 9 8 0 .

40 . R. Baker, "The Multirole Practitioner in theGeneric Orientation to Social Work Practice," op.cit. . pp. 327-352.

4 1 . ibid. p. 33 1 .42 . Baker claims the roles were partly formulatedon the basis of observation but nowhere does heprovide the data on this.

43. In personal communications.44. R. Baker, "Building and Implementing UnitarySocial Work Practice: A Personal Account," op. cit.p .33.

45. M. Siporin, "Practice Theory and VestedInterests," Social Service Review, Sept.. 19 78 .pp. 4 1 8 - 4 3 5 .

46 . University of New South Wales. ProfessionalStudies Faculty Handbook, years 1978 to 1982.

47. H. Bartlett, op. cit. p. 56.48. For example. R. Bailey & M. Brake, RadicalSocial Work, Arnold, Lond.. 19 75 .

M. Brake & R. Bailey, Radical Social WorkPractice, Arnold, Lond., 1980.J . Galper, Social Work Practice A RadicalPerspective, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 19 80 .D. Statham, Radicals in Social Work, R.K.P.,Lond.. 1978.


generic n method apporach

Documents