HBSE Thread from BPD List
Good morning everyone,
My HBSE students have had trouble in the past with organizing the different bio-psycho-social theories. I am trying to come up with a concise chart that they can reference so that they don't get stuck on this piece and lose site of integrating these theories into understanding human behavior.
Does anyone have or utilize something like this already?
If you could share, that would be great--I will share responses with the list.
Thanks!
Danielle Pack McCarthy
Marist College
------
I'm biased (am co-author of the following), but I hope you will include human needs theory! Much neglected: http://tinyurl.com/3okdwv2
Michael A. Dover, Ph.D.
Cleveland State University
------
Hi Danielle – I’ve struggled with this same issue along with the correlated one of how to help students
figure out the synthesis and implications of theories and knowledge for their practice. Rather than list specific theories, these struggles led me to using a Venn diagram to help students learn to house and structure their learning. I’ve summarized and conceptually positioned my approach. The “Social Work Integral Model” article is currently available for free from Families in Society http://www.familiesinsociety.org/FreeArticles.asp .
I look forward to learning from other’s responses to this post. I think these issues are our paramount struggle in teaching (I also teach HBSE along with practice). Danielle I hope you’ll summarize suggestions, particularly if you get some sent just to you. I’m excited by this thread and welcome group or individual discussion on this topic. I’m also happy to send anyone PowerPoint slides of my SWIM approach for classroom use if interested.
Michelle D. Garner, MSW, PhD, ACSW, LICSW
University of Washington, Tacoma
------
I am always wondering why we teach all these theories. They where not developed out of empirical evidence. They are merely structures that give students an abstract model to insert the client into thus taking away the unique backgrounds of diverse cultures and unique personal life experiences. I always wonder why we just don't stick to what we know about biological development and cognitive development found in neuroscience and cognitive sciences.
Getting away form a list of theories would help student actually listen to the client's life narrative rather than pigeon hole them according to some artificial model of development.
just a thought.
Robert Blundo, Ph.D., LCSW
University of North Carolina Wilmington
------
I have a slightly different view of the "utility" of theories that are not empirically proven, a view that might be tilted because most of the students i teach come from Southern Georgia and tend to strongly believe that what they believe is true. So some of them really think that being Gay is a sin, and a choice.
I think we teach them these non-proven theories so that they have other ways of thinking about clients. I think these theories, though they might not be "true" are more likely to get student's to see a client as they client is, than their personal theories based on the teachings of their church.
AS FOR THE ORIGINAL QUESTION:
I use Wilber's Quadrant approach, which divides experience into inner-subjective (thougths and emotions) inner-objective (neurol patterns and brain chemsitry, outer subjective (cultural norms, expecations) and outer objective (jails, patterns of neighourboods.....). I use this approach so they look at both person (inner) and envrionment (outer) and the subejctive and objective aspects of both.
Michael Sanger
------
Dr. Blundo, it is no doubt the case that we need to "help students actually listen to the client's life narrative," but aren't there theories about how to do that effectively, which we might study and teach?
But in response to your "wondering why we teach all these theories" and "why we just don't stick to what we know about biological development and cognitive development found in neuroscience and cognitive sciences," at the risk of further straying for the original question of this strand, I would argue that according to the Code of Ethics Preamble:
"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. A historic and defining feature of social work is the profession's focus on individual well-being in a social context and the well-being of society. Fundamental to social work is attention to the environmental forces that create, contribute to, and address problems in living."
What are the implications of just this one paragraph for HBSE content?
Wouldn't the above content suggest the need to utilize social science and social work theory of the sense of well-being as expressed in various cultures? There is an entire international scholarly group devoted to just that (Intl. Society for Quality of Life Studies).
Wouldn't applying such an ethical code benefit from a theory of human needs, hopefully one that is more philosophically informed (after all, philosophy has method) and scientifically tested than Maslow? For instance, at the macro level, there is the the Doyal/Gough theory of need (Doyal and Gough, 1991) and at the micro level there is the Doyal/Gough compatible self-determination theory of psychological needs (Deci and Ryan, 2000).
Wouldn't our practice benefit from theories of the nature of oppression? After all, oppression is a concept rooted in the fundamental texts of the Abrahamic tradition (http://tinyurl.com/3on4zap). Also, this base of theory has benefited from modern theories of oppression (Cudd, 2006), dehumanization (Haslam, 2006), and exploitation (Hahnel, 2006). Wouldn't we want to teach this theory and devise a typology of theories of oppression, dehumanization and exploitation and the feelings these kinds of processes produce (Dover, 2008)?
Wouldn't we want to understand emerging relational concepts of empathy (Freedberg, 2007) and how improved social work utilization of theories of human need and of the nature of oppression, dehumanization and exploitation can enhance empathetic understanding, even when cultural unfamiliarity inhibits rapid establishment of rapport (Dover and Joseph, 2008; Dover, 2009; Dover 2010).
Wouldn't we want to understand theories of human ecology, social systems and field theory, which we have evolved into ecosystems theory? Wouldn't we want to understand how, as I just got through teaching today, "every little practice decision is affected by the organizational context" (Irving Miller), something which might benefit from organizational theory and understanding of the policy context?
Isn't this what makes us social workers as opposed to people who merely study the latest bells and whistles of evidence-based psychotherapy?
Recently, Paul Hill, Jr., made me aware of this quote from W. E. B.
DuBois: "A truly educated person is one who has learned in school how to
study and in life what to study." But can we really learn how to study
about practice without theory? Don't we need not only to study theory,
but theorizing as well (Swedberg, 2009, cited in Dover, 2010b)?
Just a few thoughts after class, but I truly wonder, Dr. Blundo, can we learn how to apply the strengths model of practice which your Strengths Collaborative apparently advocates, without using theories of human need that stress that needs are not weaknesses but rather are what we strive to address with every ounce of our strength?
So forgive me if I harp on just a few theories, such as those of need, empathy, oppression, etc., about which I've written, but aren't there many more useful and valuable theories which we also need to apply to our competency-based social work education?
Cudd, Ann E. (2006). Analyzing Oppression. New York: Oxford University Press.
Deci, Edward L., & Ryan, Richard M. (2000). The "What" And "Why" Of Goal
Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior.
Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
Dover, Michael A. (2008). Oppression, Dehumanization and Exploitation: Connecting Theory to Experience. In Dorothy Van Soest & Betty Garcia (Eds.), Diversity Education for Social Justice: Mastering Teaching Skills (Second ed., pp. 296-310). Washington, DC: Council on Social Work Education.
Dover, Michael A. (2009). Rapport, Empathy and Oppression: Cross-Cultural Vignettes. Reflections: Narratives of Professional Helping, 15(4, Fall), 21-29.
Dover, Michael A. (2010a), Human Needs: An Annotated Bibliography, in Oxford Bibliography Online: Social Work. Edward Mullen, Editor. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dover, Michael A. (2010b). Lessons from Learning the Craft of Theory Driven Research. Peer reviewed conference paper presented at the American Sociological Association Theory Section Mini-Conference Paper Session, The Craft of Theorizing, and published electronically in the ASA Program Archives: http://tinyurl.com/6z2ym9w.
Doyal, Len, & Gough, Ian. (1991). A theory of human needs. New York: Guilford.
Freedberg, Sharon (2007). Re-examining empathy: A relational-feminist point of view. Social Work, 52(3, July), 251-259.
Hahnel, Robin (2006). Exploitation: A Modern Approach. Review of Radical Political Economics, 38(2), 175-192.
Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An Integrative Review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 252-264.
Swedberg, Richard. 2009. "The Craft of Theorizing: A Topic of Importance and the Topic for the Theory Sections Mini-Conference in Atlanta, in August 2010." Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Available electronically at: http://www.csun.edu/~egodard/asatheory/docs/CraftofTheorizing.pdf
Michael A. Dover, Ph.D.
Cleveland State University
------
ncsss.cua.edu/res/docs/field/theories.pdf
Brian E. Anderson, Ph.D.
Jackson State University
------
I do understand your interest in moving students away from disempowering concepts. But I question replacing these positions with human behavior theories that do almost the same thing. I doubt if these human behavior theories would change these basic ideas students bring. Actually, I believe that the multiple theories only make things even more complicated for students. They are presented with a list of theories from which to choose to see the person they are working with which disempowers the individual. They are no longer who they are but now they are deficient in some way and in need of intervention.
Maybe the issue you face and I think all of us face with this particular challenge is addressing repression and social justice issues within the curriculum in some other way. Stongly held beliefs are not going to disappear by replacing them with Erikson.
I would like to talk with you further about this, maybe a paper or some research together.
Robert Blundo, Ph.D., LCSW
------
This is a compelling argument that I think has real merit. I also wish we would focus on social workers contributions to the theoretical perspectives such as Germain's ecological systems theory and PIE.
Shelagh Larkin, MSW/LISW
Xavier University
------
Interesting topic for discussion, no doubt. I look at it from another perspective. As a Clinical Supervisor who hired family service workers for many years in an agency, I always found it disturbing that candidates were not able to articulate the theories/perspectives/concepts from which they worked.
I believe that being able to think critically about theory is a key point of education. Otherwise, there is no distinction between a conversation and a professional dialogue.
Humans are complex beings. The information we gather in dialogue with our clients is being filtered/compartmentalized whether we like that or not - knowing a variety of filters, choosing and finding what is useful for the client can be collaborative, as well as instructional.
Most of my students have grown up with "cause and effect" thinking - when they apply this linear approach to their cases, they miss the point. Clients usually understand their challenges from a "cause and effect" perspective. They don't need us to add more of the same. So, understanding systems is critical. To me applying Person-In-Environment in a non-linear fashion is one of the distinctions of being a social worker.
I challenge my students in each assignment to choose to look at the assignment from at least two theories/perspectives/concepts. It is not about a "truth" of one theory over the other. It is about multiplicity! (Aren't we in a post-modern era?) I think that providing a list of traditional and alternative theory gives students a place to begin...I would want to hire someone who could describe how someone becomes "delinquent" at the age of 12 from a variety of angles. I would not want someone guiding a brain surgery without knowing that they were educated on the various nuances of the brain. Isn't this what makes us professional, as opposed to para-professional?
Isn't this what makes us social workers as opposed to psychologists? A broad base of KNOWLEDGE...
Lindee Petersen Wilson
Avila University
------
Using a theory or multiple theories only replaces the grown up cause and effect with another that once again forces them to consider the person from a different cause and effect leaving them seeing the world through another lens of abstract propositions which then translates the person's world of diversity and uniqueness into a standardized cause and effect. It does not do justice to the complexity of people's lives and is not supportive of social justice. Maslow based his list on "successful white males" if I recall correctly. I see social justice at all levels and when we take away the voice of an individual and replace it with a theory or models version we are not practicing social justice nor are we respecting diversity.
I work from a strengths and solution-focused perspective which requires the student to work within the world of the client. The very idea of imposing an abstract perspective does not fit these models. It also helps address the common grown up cause and effect issue since the student is alert to personal bias and concepts when struggling to come from a "not Knowing" position [Anderson and Goolishian]. It teaches them to listen better. Of course being aware of one's own biases and ideas and assumptions become a continuous effort on the part of students if they are to do strengths based and solution-focused work.
As far as hiring someone without a theory, I always look for a good understanding of a way of working rather than a human development theory.
Robert Blundo, Ph.D., LCSW
------
My take is that PIE is sort of a conceptual framework, standing for person-in-environment, asking social workers to take both into account in their assessment and intervention efforts.
It is definitely not a theory, in the sense that traditionally theories are efforts to systematically EXPLAIN phenomena, such as the origins and maintaining factors of clients' behavior, and/or of the mechanisms of action of psychosocial interventions.