Oxford Bibliographies Online

MANUSCRIPT EVALUATION

Reviewer:

Date:April 20, 2009

Entry Title:Human Needs

Article number:0067

Author:Michael Dover

Notes from author or OUP:

Your comments:Please provide answers to the following questions. You may write in your answers under each question or provide them in a separate document if you prefer. Also, we welcome any other specific comments or recommendations you might choose to offer.

  1. In general, does entry have proper scope, reflect appropriatescholarship, and represent allessential sides of the topic being covered?

This is a comprehensive, thoughtful, and scholarly entry, reflecting considerable familiarity with and depth in the topic. It covers all the major domains that I would expect to find within this subject area, at a level that is unusually detailed and carefully crafted.

Although the comprehensiveness of the entry is a major strength, it also presents challenges to the reader, even when one has a fair degree of familiarity with this topic and related literatures. My feedback and recommendations are therefore directed not so much to content, but rather to 1) how the entry overall is framed; and 2) some of the ways in which it is organized. Specifically, given the relative density and scope of the information being presented,I suggest providing some additional guidance to the reader concerning the primary content areas, themes, areas of tension, and lines of development. This guidance should ideally begin in the introduction, and then follow through across the major content areas, so that in effect the reader is provided with a roadmap to the central issues addressed in the entry. Some more specific thoughts/suggestions follow[MSOffice1]:

-Nowhere in the entry is there any straightforward definitional work on the concept of human needs[MSOffice2]. I realize that the question of defining “need” is itself a tangle, and inherently contested, but I think readers will nonetheless benefit from a short overview of prevailing definitions – and related debates – in the introduction , which can then set the stage for a good deal of the literature that follows. Since Maslow’s hierarchy tends to be the default in thinking about needs in social work, mapping out the dimensionality of needs thinking from the outset would be very helpful in pointing readers to the range of other perspectives that the entry lays out. This might also include a sentence on needs vs. wants.

-Similarly, I think it would be helpful for the introduction to include a very brief discussion/overview of the main lines of development in thinking about needs in the US (e.g. from the Judeo-Christian thinking about the needy poor of the Progressive era, to Maslow and psychological theories, to rights/needs frameworks, and on to Sen, Nussbaum etc[MSOffice3].)

-Likewise, it would be helpful if the introduction could summarize the major lines of tension and/or discussion that predominate in this literature (such as needs/rights, universal vs. specific, needs vs. capabilities etc[MSOffice4].). The lead sentence in the next section notes social work’s ambivalence towards the concept of needs, but doesn’t elaborate on the nature of this ambivalence – a brief discussion of which, within and beyond social work, would I think help to bring to the surface some of the main issues in this literature as a whole[MSOffice5].

-The introduction could also helpfully provide some brief guidance as to how the entry as a whole is constructed – its’ overall logic, in other words. [MSOffice6]

-[From OUP: in your revisions, please be mindful of the 1-paragraph space limit for the Introduction.]

  1. Has the author been evenhanded, offering a balanced overview of the major literature while including representative works from all perspectives?

The entry is even-handed and balanced, presenting a range of perspectives and materials that comment on main themes from different points of view.

  1. Does the table of contents seem logically organized? Areheadings accurately indicative of the citations they precede? Do any sections need to be added?

Per my comments above about providing readers with better guidance through this very detailed overview, I suggest some thinking about (and possibly rethinking) the order in which materials are presented.

-The major subsection on Historical Background needs to more clearly show what falls within this area – is this the historical background to all thinking about needs, or primarily to needs thinking within social work and social welfare? The sections on early and post-war history focus primarily on social work, but the middle section addresses early psychological theories. Rather than combining apples and oranges, it may be more useful to separate the social work background (presented in two sections, Progressive Era to World War II; Post World War II) from the psychological theories. This would also pave the way for my next suggestion[MSOffice7].

-In general, I recommend clustering like with like. For example, the foundational social work content could all be in one major sub-section, and the psychological content could be moved to the following section on theories and approaches.

-Note also that the Post-War header should specify which war (here, as in other sections that address the historical progression of ideas, I encourage more careful anchoring in historical context[MSOffice8]).

-Regarding the sections on Marxian, Neo-Marxian, Feminist, Political Economic theories, and Doyal/Gough: I found the content in these sections rather hard to follow (see also my notes below under question 5). Probably this reflects my own training, but in general I think it is better to present theoretical developments in temporal sequence, since each theorists builds on (or responds to) the work of those who gone before. [MSOffice9]The lack of a clear temporal structure, both across and within these sections of the entry, is thus confusing. Furthermore, I think it would be more coherent for readers to have all the materials on each major theorist in one section, unless the content of the item is directed not the author’s own ideas but towards the content in another topical area. I therefore recommend that the author look closely at these sections (and indeed across the entry as a whole) to see if there is content that could be clustered differently. I also suggest that within sub-sections, materials be presented in the order in which they were written, rather than alphabetically. [MSOffice10]

-A topic ordering reflecting both key theoretical domains and their temporal sequencing could perhaps be developed, for example:

  • Early Psychological Theories: Maslow & Murray[MSOffice11]
  • Marxian , Neo-Marxian, and Feminist
  • Political Economic Theory [though I struggle with this header]
  • Doyal & Gough’s Theory of Human Need
  • Recent Psychological Theories [name theory and key authors here, to parallel prior section?]
  • Philosophical Discussions (though note my concerns below about this section)
  • Capability Theories (Kumar/Nussbaum/Sen etc.) – see my notes below on possibly adding this section[MSOffice12]
  • Nursing Theories
  • Religion, Spirituality and Human Needs

-Philosophical Discussions: -- it’s not entirely clear to me where this section should be positioned, since it seems to be offering content on larger philosophical issues than the more specific theoretical discussions that have preceded it. It also incorporates content – e.g. Doyal – that should probably be in the relevant topical sections. Perhaps either move the section up (to the general overviews, even?) or clarify what it does. And ensure that the citations it includes are appropriately positioned[MSOffice13].

-As I note below, references that seem pertinent to the areas above are scattered throughout the sections on research.

-The last 4 section of the entry (Human Rights and Human Needs,Social Justice and Human Needs, Culture and Human Needs andOppression, Dehumanization, and Exploitation, and Human Needs)seem logically as though they should be positioned earlier in the entry, as framing content, rather than following the sections on application and research. Since they mix social work frameworks and those from other disciplines, it’s not quite clear where they would actually fit(perhaps before the historical background?), but I encourage the author to nonetheless think through where and how they relate to the overall content of the entry. And at the very least to make clear from the outset that the issues addressed in these sections lie at the heart of some of the debates and ambivalences around identifying and responding to human needs[MSOffice14].

-[From OUP: As the TOC progresses, topics should become most specific, less broad.]

  1. Does the general introductionaccurately define and introduce the entry topic?If not, do you have any suggested edits?

As noted above, I recommend attention to overall framing and some additional content on definitions, major debates/tensions, and primary lines of theoretical development[MSOffice15].

  1. Do the commentary texts provide direct guidance through citations? Will they help users to determine which resources they will need for specific research?Are interconnections between key texts made clear?

Many of the commentary texts are very well done, particularly those in the later sections (e.g. the sections on nursing and religion are particularly well crafted). Some of the earlier ones are less clear. Specifically:

-In the discussion of early psychological theories, it would be helpful to note Murray’s focus[MSOffice16]. Also, the relationship of field theory to needs, including the presentation of Lewin’s ideas, isn’t clear. In general this material seems less than central for this entry (Lewin’s focus on person/environment interactions and situational meaning seems more pertinent to the person-environment and ecological framework entries). Presenting GST as an alternative to needs thinking also seems like a misreading – and as content that is perhaps better left for other entries unless it really is central here[MSOffice17].

-Historical background section. Why was a focus on needs “inescapable”?[MSOffice18] And what was the historical context for this? Note also that in Social Diagnosis Mary Richmond wrote of “social needs” – not surprisingly, given the Progressive era preoccupations. In general, the introduction to this section should be more firmly anchored in terms of time-frame, historical context, and key people – at present it is overly general[MSOffice19].

-Post-War – here also more careful anchoring in historical context would be helpful (the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights and ensuing developments, for example[MSOffice20]).

-Marxian/neo-Marxian/Feminist approaches: The lead sentence re social work is confusing –when and in what ways was social work influenced by these ideas[MSOffice21]? This sentence is also poorly integrated with the points that follow re philosophy. In general, this introductory paragraph illustrates my larger concern about helping readers to keep track of main points, as the points it is making are not easily followed (and certainly not by a novice reader in this literature). In a larger sense, what issues being grappled with by these readings? And what does each contribute to discussions/debates over needs? I encourage the author to step back and think about what the reader most needs to know in order to be able to approach these readings as a set as well as separately.

-Political-economic theory – what is the distinction between this and Marxian theory? (which I think of as being inherently a political-economic framework, given its central focus on a critical analysis of capitalism). In general, what is the basis on which authors are included here rather than elsewhere? (why are Nussbaum and Sen here, for example, rather than in a separate section on capabilities theorists[MSOffice22]?). Here also, I suggest temporal ordering of works cited.

-Doyal and Gough: it would be helpful if the commentary could show how this theory relates to those that preceded it (e.g. Maslow’s work). Is it an extension – or a new theoretical direction? I also wonder if it would serve readers better to have all materials on this theory presented within this section – for example, the Gough 2000 cite in the social policy section may be better placed here[MSOffice23].

-Empirical research – as I also note below, I wonder whether it might be useful to link relevant research exemplars to their underlying theoretical domains. For example, empirical research based on Maslow’s framework (which has generated a great deal of work) could be presented following the section on his theoretical work. Organizing content in this way would add to the coherence and navigability of the entry[MSOffice24].

  1. Are allessential primary works, secondary works, journals, and online resources included? If not, what should be added?

-Although the resources listed are very comprehensive, I think it would be helpful to have a section dedicated to capability theories (e.g. Nussbaum and Sen) given their increasing salience, particularly in relation to international development. Currently much of this content is buried in the section on cross-national research, giving it less centrality than I think it deserves.More content on Sen would also be valuable – relatively less of his work is included in the entry[MSOffice25].

-I also wonder if there might be a bit more attention to work on ethics of care, since this too is becoming more centrally of interest across a range of disciplines. [MSOffice26]

-In the section on general overviews, I suggest including IFSW as well as NASW, since there are some differences in framing and this adds an important international dimension[MSOffice27].

  1. Are all citations relevant to the topic and useful to the user? Are annotationsaccurate, specific, and substantive?

Most of the citations are both relevant and appropriately annotated. There are however a lot of cites – and this is a long entry in general – so I suggest that the author cross-checks listed cites, particularly in longer sections, for both relevance and centrality. Some can perhaps be deleted. For[MSOffice28] example:

-See my note above re the content on Lewin and field theory[MSOffice29].

-At time there is redundancy (e.g. the two citations for the Life Model in the section on social work practice – for this, the most recent edition of the textbook (2008) would suffice[MSOffice30]). In this same section I also wondered if some of the earlier citations (e.g. Bertha Reynolds) would be more usefully incorporated in the historical background materials on social work, since presumably (given those earlier sections) these later sections are intended to focus more on contemporary frameworks and applications[MSOffice31]. Something to also think through in terms of the logical structure of the entry as a whole.

-Likewise, many of the citations in the research section are on studies informed by or testing specific theories delineated earlier. As noted above, the author might consider incorporating at least some of these citations in the sections on the theories, to enhance coherence and also to add depth in these sections[MSOffice32].

-As noted above, within all sections I suggest presenting cited works in date order rather than alphabetically.

  1. Is there a sufficient amount of non-English works cited (this includes works in their original language and in translation)? Are enough journal articles represented? Are online resources represented?

The balance of books, chapters, and journal articles seems appropriate – it is largely US-centric but does include non-US materials where possible and appropriate. The one section where this could be extended is if a section on capability theory is added, since much of the work in this area is internationally focused (and can potentially also include websites, for example the Human Development and Capability Association --

Reviewer's Evaluation: (please check one)

[ ]The manuscript is approved for publication as is OR with

[ ] Light copyediting (edit for grammar, spelling, and punctuation)

[ ] Medium copyediting (edit for style; some line editing)

[ ] Heavy copyediting (restructure; reorganize; line editing)

[ X ]The manuscript is provisionally approved for publication subject to revisions to be made by the author.

[ ]The manuscript is unsatisfactory for publication and rejection is suggested.

Please include any additional comments you’d to offer here or in a separate document if you prefer:

To reiterate – I see this as a very scholarly and careful piece of work. My main interest is making its overall structure and key conceptual elements more readily apparent to the user. This topical area opens up a complex set of questions, which have been (and continue to be) the subject of considerable debate. Making sure that users have guidance regarding how best to access not only key disciplinary domains and theorists but also the central definitional and philosophical dimensions of the issue is thus very important.

Return your evaluation to:Alixandra Gould,

9780195389678 0067

Citation style: Scientific

Oxford Bibliography Online: Social Work

Michael A. Dover, Ph.D.

Visiting Assistant Professor

School of Social Work

ClevelandStateUniversity

Human Needs

Introduction

General Overviews

Historical Background

Early History

Early Psychological Theories

Postwar Discussion

Theory and Approaches

Marxian, Neo-Marxian and Feminist Approaches

Political Economic Theory

Doyal and Gough's Theory of Human Need

Recent Psychological Theories

Philosophical Discussions

Nursing Theories

Religion, Spirituality and Human Needs

Social Work Practice

Social Policy

Research

Direct Practice Research

Gerontological Research

Cross-National Comparative Research

Needs Assessment Research

Human Rights and Human Needs

Social Justice and Human Needs

Cultural Diversity and Human Needs

Oppression, Dehumanization and Exploitation and Human Needs

INTRODUCTION

As a profession, social work has long been concerned with understanding and meeting human needs. The Preamble of the Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers states: “The primary mission of the social work profession is to enhance human well-being and help meet the basic human needs of all people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty.” Nevertheless, there is a scarcity of literature coming from within the profession of social work that addresses human needs explicitly. However, a growing body of human needs-related literature from other disciplines contributes to the liberal arts foundation of social work. In addition, other professions such as nursing have drawn extensively on human needs theory. Accordingly, this bibliography will explore the history and evolution of the body of human needs theory and research on which social work has drawn historically. It will also provide an overview of the recent literature which can enrich social work’s attention to the concept of human needs and its relationship to such other key social work concepts such as human rights, social justice, diversity and oppression.