Suchergebnisse

It is self-evident that critique lies at the heart of Critical Social Work. Even so, more attention should be given to clarifying the meaning of this form of evaluation, particularly when it is applied in the social sciences and social professions. More precisely, it is necessary to explain the meta-theoretical conceptualisation of critique and, crucially, note its different expressions. Through gaining such clarity, the contention is that Critical Social Work sharpens its appreciation of social injustice and how to tackle it. This article describes and augments one meta-theoretical conception of critique involving a typology delineating interconnected forms of evaluation. The indelible bond between this paradigmatic outline of critique, critical theory and Critical Social Work is subsequently considered, highlighting some possibilities for social transformation. Adopting these precepts, by way of conclusion, leads to a critical cosmopolitan orientation within Critical Social Work, making it relevant to the pressing challenges of today's world.

Critical realism, as expounded by Bhaskar, is a philosophy of social science that has been applied in social work scholarship addressing such areas as research methodology, practice interventions and programme evaluation. Most of these applications are based on the early rendition of the philosophy, with little attention given to Bhaskar's later, more mature, development of dialectical critical realism. This article addresses this gap, describing how dialectic critical realism builds on the early iteration of the philosophy to account for emancipatory change in the social world. The contribution of dialectical critical realism to anti-oppressive social work is then considered through the articulation of six, interlinked steps of transformative change. Finally, the preceding meta-theoretical steps are applied to a fictitious case example involving a young person leaving care. The aim here is to show how the steps can be integrated within social work practice to stimulate positive change, human emancipation and well-being.

Abstract
Assessment is a pivotal part of social work process and is meant, amongst other things, to identify the deep-seated causes of human behaviour and well-being. This search for causation, it is argued, can be illuminated through a critical realist understanding of the person in society. In line with this philosophical stance, this article introduces a little considered causative mechanism pertinent to social work assessment: that of psychological abjection. Formulated by the French psychoanalytical theorist, Julia Kristeva, abjection serves to differentiate the self from the 'abject' or what is viewed as atypical in presentation. This concept is then scrutinised leading to the enlarged notion of social abjection; that is, the 'othering' and shaming of social groups which are viewed as anomalous. The implications of both psychological and social abjection for social workers are subsequently considered. At this point, the countervailing causative mechanism of recognition is proposed to mitigate abjection, and an argument is made for applying it within narrative social work and emancipatory groupwork. Finally, it is contended that social workers must commit to abjection work. This effort involves professionals gaining insight into how the abjection mechanism affects their inner world of perception and emotion, assessment of situations, and approach to service users.

Bronfenbrenner's model of bio-ecological development has been utilised widely within the social sciences, in the field of human development, and in social work. Yet, while championing the rights of marginalised families and communities, Bronfenbrenner had under-theorised the role of power, agency and structure in shaping the 'person–context' interrelationship, life opportunities and social wellbeing. To respond to this deficit, this article first outlines Bronfenbrenner's 'person, process, context and time' model. It then seeks to loosely align aspects of Bronfenbrenner's model with Bourdieu's analytical categories of habitus, field and capital. It is argued that these latter categories enable social workers to develop a critical ecology of child development, taking account of power and the interplay between agency and structure. The implications of the alignment for child and family social work are considered in the final section.

This article describes a piece of social research commissioned by the Northern Ireland Social Care Council. It investigated the significance of a reflexive framework and linked, enabling process for social work practice. Both of these conceptual areas had been previously developed by the author and outlined in a prior submission to the journal. The methodological orientation was qualitative and idiographic so that the participants' in-depth meanings could be captured in the form of a case study. In terms of data collection, three parallel, coterminous focus groups were convened and met on three occasions. To enhance the study's representativeness, the sample was purposively drawn from a range of social work sectors and enabling contexts within Northern Ireland. The results showed that the participants wanted a reduced format and presentation of the framework, one that was accessible for busy practitioners and one that helped to clarify the nature of social work within the political and economic spheres. They also strongly registered the barriers to practising reflexivity in the modern organisation. Although the research design was limited to perspectival accounts, it showed how reflexive social work practice can be helpfully conceptualised through an awareness of the impact of various power-laden, psychosocial domains on social life.

This article sets out a framework to structure reflexivity in social work practice. It comprises five domains that impact on the individual and social life, namely (a) psychobiography – referring to a person's unique experience throughout the lifecourse; (b) situated activity – highlighting the impact of everyday social interaction; (c) social settings – addressing the role of organisations in social life; (d) culture – covering the influence of attitudes, beliefs, tastes and ideas on symbolic meaning; and (e) politico-economy – alluding to the ramifications of political and economic forces on people's lives. It is contended that power circulates throughout each domain as an enabling and constraining force. The article then outlines a process for using the reflexive framework in 'enabling' activities such as practice learning, supervision, mentoring and coaching. By applying the framework in these contexts, it is argued that social workers can reflect critically on their role and develop emancipatory forms of practice.

Summary This article provides a review of the contribution of Axel Honneth's model of recognition for critical social work. While Honneth's tripartite conceptualisation of optimal identity-formation is positively appraised, his analysis of the link between misrecognition, the experience of shame and eventual sense of moral outrage, is contested. Drawing on a range of sources, including the sociology of shame, Honneth's ideas about the emotional antecedents of emancipatory action are revised to guide critical social work with misrecognised service users. Findings The intellectual background to Honneth's recognition model, emanating from leading German philosophers, is described and its application to social work set out. Even so, Honneth's model is found to be deficient in one primary regard: its assumption about the emotional antecedents to quests for withheld recognition is misapprehended. In particular, the argument in this article is that the ubiquitous emotion of shame, which Honneth argues flows from misrecognition, must be carefully addressed through the medium of relationship, otherwise it might lead to repressed shame and frustrated attempts at social struggle. To this end, a social work process is delineated for dealing with shame, following episodes of misrecognition. Applications Honneth's model of recognition, along with revised ideas about how to recognise and manage shame, is incorporated into a conceptual framework for critical social work practice. With this renewed understanding of the impact of shame, following misrecognition, social workers should be better equipped conceptually to enable service users to take action for empowerment.

Social work in the United Kingdom remains embroiled in concerns about child protection error. The serious injury or death of vulnerable children continues to evince much consternation in the public and private spheres. Governmental responses to these concerns invariably draw on technocratic solutions involving more procedures, case management systems, information technology and bureaucratic regulation. Such solutions flow from an implicit use of instrumental rationality based on a 'means-end' logic. While bringing an important perspective to the problem of child protection error, instrumental rationality has been overused limiting discretion and other modes of rational inquiry. This paper argues that the social work profession should apply an enlarged form of rationality comprising not only the instrumental-rational mode but also the critical-rational, affective-rational and communicative-rational forms. It is suggested that this combined, conceptual arsenal of rational inquiry leads to a gestalt which has been termed the holistic-rational perspective. It is also argued that embracing a more rounded perspective such as this might offer greater opportunities for reducing child protection error.

AbstractThe assessment of parenting capacity continues to engender public concern in cases of suspected harm to children. This paper outlines a model for approaching this task based on the application of three key domains of knowledge in social work relating to facts, theory and practice wisdom. The McMaster Model of Family Assessment is identified out of this process and reworked to give it a sharper focus on parenting roles and responsibilities. Seven formative dimensions of parenting are then elicited and combined with an analytical process of identifying strengths, concerns, prospects for growth and impact on child outcomes. The resulting assessment framework, it is argued, adds rigour to professional judgements about parenting capacity and enhances formulations on risk in child protection.

The aim of this paper is to explore the 'natural attitude' underpinning risk practices in child welfare. This refers to various taken-for-granted approaches to risk that social workers and other human service professionals draw upon in their everyday practice. The approach proceeds by identifying and critically examining three key, meta-theoretical paradigms on risk which typically shape the natural attitude. They are labelled 'objectivist', 'subjectivist' and 'critical'. The ontological, epistemological, axiological and methodological premises supporting each paradigm, and how they shape risk practices, are then reviewed leading to a composite, meta-theoretical position on risk termed 'methodological pragmatism'. This position draws on the strengths of each paradigm and is formulated into ten propositions which consider how risk should be approached in child welfare. Within this corpus of thought salient themes are endorsed such as the need for method triangulation, an examination of 'deep causality', and the promotion of emancipatory perspectives. By critically reflecting on meta-theory, the paper contributes to the development of substantive theories of risk assessment and management in child welfare.

This response recasts the issues highlighted by Longhofer and Floersch in terms of the continuing dynamics of the neoliberal knowldege economy, how this impacts on what is researched by the social work academy, how it is researched, and what type of research is recognized. While Longhofer and Floersch's turn to critical realism is welcomed, this underlaboring position must be focused on the mechanisms driving neoliberalism in the modern world, primarily those associated with the commodification of social work practice and services. In order to more fully understand the nature and impact of these mechanisms, this response valorizes the continuing significance of critical social theory as expressed by theorists in the Frankfurt School. Because of the complexity of oppression under neoliberalism, it is finally argued that critical realist approaches in social work need to use a diversity of methods embracing deduction, induction, abduction, and retroduction.