In every aspect of society, power dynamics shape interactions and outcomes. Whether in politics, business, education, or personal relationships, power influences how individuals and groups behave. John R.P. French, Jr., and Bertram Raven’s seminal 1959 study on the bases of social power provides a deep exploration of the nature of power, its sources, and how it operates in social settings.
What is Social Power?
French and Raven define power as the potential ability of one person (O) to influence another (P) within a specific context. This power is not absolute but conditional on the relationship between O and P, as well as the context or system in which this interaction occurs. Power is thus seen as potential influence, while influence is defined as the actual exertion of power that causes change in P’s behavior or opinions.
At the core of their analysis is the dyadic relationship between the agent exerting power and the recipient. This relationship is influenced by several factors, such as psychological states, social structures, and the types of power being exerted.
The Five Bases of Power
French and Raven identify five main types of power:
Reward Power: This is based on O’s ability to offer rewards that are valued by P. For instance, a manager who provides bonuses for meeting targets exercises reward power. The strength of this power depends on P’s perception of the value of the reward and O’s ability to deliver it.
Coercive Power: In contrast to reward power, coercive power involves O’s ability to enforce punishments. The threat of negative consequences, such as a demotion or termination, can compel P to comply with O’s demands. While coercive power can be effective, it often leads to resistance or decreased attraction toward O.
Legitimate Power: This power is derived from a social or organizational role that grants O the right to prescribe behavior. For example, a police officer has legitimate power to enforce laws. This power is based on societal norms and structures, and it is often tied to formal roles within an organization.
Referent Power: This form of power stems from P’s identification with O. When P admires or wants to be like O, such as a mentor or a charismatic leader, O can influence P’s beliefs and behaviors without the need for explicit rewards or punishments.
Expert Power: Expert power is based on O’s knowledge or expertise in a particular area. When P perceives that O has specialized knowledge that is superior, such as a doctor providing medical advice, P is likely to follow O’s guidance. Expert power tends to be limited to specific domains and is dependent on the perceived credibility of O.
Dynamics of Power and Influence
The application of power is not always straightforward, and its effectiveness depends on several factors, such as the range of power and the degree of dependence. French and Raven explain that power dynamics are context-dependent. For instance, reward and coercive powers often lead to a high level of dependence on O because P’s behavior is contingent on the expectation of rewards or punishments. This dependence may weaken if O’s ability to deliver these outcomes becomes uncertain.
On the other hand, legitimate, referent, and expert powers may result in more stable changes in P’s behavior, as these types of power are often internalized. For instance, if P respects O’s expertise, they are more likely to adopt new behaviors that persist even when O is no longer present.
Another important dynamic discussed by the authors is the concept of resistance. Coercive power, in particular, tends to generate resistance in P. If P feels that O’s use of coercion is illegitimate or excessive, P may resist by either reducing their compliance or completely rejecting O’s influence. In contrast, the use of reward power typically increases attraction toward O and results in less resistance.
The Range and Limitations of Power
Each type of power has its range, which refers to the set of behaviors or areas where O can effectively influence P. For instance, an expert in law may have strong influence over legal matters but little influence in areas outside their expertise. When O attempts to exert power beyond their range, they risk diminishing their overall power. For example, if an expert tries to influence P in areas where they lack credibility, it can undermine their authority even in their area of expertise.
Additionally, French and Raven note that over time, the influence that comes from certain types of power can become less dependent on O’s presence. For instance, changes that result from legitimate or referent power may become internalized by P, leading to more stable and lasting effects even when O is not actively exerting influence.
Conclusion
The study of social power is crucial for understanding how individuals and groups navigate relationships and influence one another. French and Raven’s framework provides a systematic way of categorizing power, allowing us to analyze its sources, effects, and limitations. Whether in leadership, education, or everyday interactions, recognizing the bases of power can help us wield influence more effectively while also understanding the potential consequences of our actions.
As society continues to evolve, the dynamics of power remain central to social organization, making this framework as relevant today as it was in 1959.
Introduction: Empathy is widely recognized as a crucial element in social work, playing a significant role in practitioner-service user relationships. Despite its importance, there is no universally accepted social work model or definition of empathy. This gap contrasts with other fields, such as psychology and neuroscience, which have made significant strides in understanding and conceptualising empathy. Social workers often find it difficult to define empathy within their own discipline, despite its central role in social justice and interpersonal relations. This article introduces a social work model of empathy that integrates recent interdisciplinary research, especially from social cognitive neuroscience, and situates it within social work’s core values, such as the Person-in-Environment (PIE) approach.
Empathy in Social Work:
Empathy is indispensable in social work, with numerous studies highlighting its importance in service user-practitioner relationships. Empathy is also essential for working with diverse populations, such as at-risk parents, partners, and even individuals like sex offenders. In healthy relationships, empathy fosters understanding, and it is particularly vital for parental relationships, as it helps raise emotionally well-adjusted children.
Surprisingly, empathy is not explicitly mentioned in key social work guidelines, such as the NASW Code of Ethics or the CSWE Educational Policy. However, this may reflect the ubiquity and assumed understanding of empathy, even though the lack of a concrete model or definition hinders deeper teaching and application.
Conceptual Challenges:
Empathy is commonly defined as the ability to imagine another’s emotions and thoughts. However, this definition has led to confusion, as empathy has been variously described as an innate trait, a cognitive skill, a physiological response, or some combination of these elements. The inconsistency in definitions and measurement across studies and disciplines makes it challenging to operationalise empathy in a meaningful and practical way.
Developmental and Neuroscientific Insights on Empathy:
Empathy’s dual nature—both as a passive reflection and an active effort to understand others—has been recognized since the early 20th century. Developmental psychologists, such as Hoffman, have explored empathy as part of human development, where early mimicry in infants eventually evolves into more complex forms of perspective-taking and role-playing. Hoffman also highlighted “empathic distress,” where witnessing others’ suffering motivates moral and prosocial actions.
In the 1990s, researchers like Batson linked empathy to altruism, suggesting that people often act to alleviate their own discomfort when witnessing others’ suffering. However, the relationship between empathy and altruism is not always straightforward, as individuals can engage in prosocial behavior for various motives.
Mirror Neurons and Empathy:
The discovery of mirror neurons has provided new insights into the biological underpinnings of empathy. These neurons, which fire both when an action is performed and when it is observed in others, allow humans to mirror the emotions and actions of those around them. This automatic, unconscious response suggests that empathy is deeply rooted in our brain’s neural pathways. However, research also indicates that conditions like autism or brain injury can impair this mirroring capacity, leading to empathy deficits.
A Social Cognitive Neuroscience Model of Empathy:
Decety and colleagues identified four key neural networks that mediate empathy:
Affective Sharing: The automatic experience of sharing emotions with others, driven by mirror neurons.
Self-Awareness: The ability to distinguish between one’s own emotions and those of others.
Mental Flexibility/Perspective-Taking: The cognitive capacity to adopt another person’s point of view.
Emotion Regulation: The ability to modulate one’s emotional responses to avoid becoming overwhelmed.
These components are essential for a full empathic response, but the social work model also incorporates the importance of social justice and the broader environmental context in which empathy operates.
The Person-in-Environment (PIE) Approach:
The Person-in-Environment (PIE) approach is foundational in social work and is crucial for a full understanding of empathy within this profession. PIE posits that individuals cannot be separated from the social, cultural, and economic environments that shape their lives. It emphasises that human behavior and well-being are influenced by the interaction of various systems, including family, community, socioeconomic factors, and broader societal structures.
In the context of the social work model of empathy, PIE enhances the practitioner’s ability to not only empathise with the service user’s emotional state but also understand the external factors influencing their situation. For example, when a social worker empathises with a service user struggling with homelessness, the PIE approach prompts the social worker to consider the systemic issues contributing to their service user’s hardship—such as unemployment, lack of affordable housing, or discriminatory policies—rather than viewing the situation solely through an individual lens. This broader understanding leads to more comprehensive and impactful interventions that address both personal and systemic challenges.
Empathy Through the Lens of PIE
Holistic Understanding of Service Users: The PIE framework enhances empathy by ensuring that social workers consider the full context of a service user’s life. A service user’s emotional distress might not solely be due to personal factors but could also stem from systemic issues such as poverty, discrimination, or lack of access to resources. Empathy, in this context, involves understanding how these external pressures contribute to the service user’s experiences and behaviors.
Cognitive Processing and Environmental Awareness: In the social work model of empathy, cognitive processing involves perspective-taking and understanding another person’s situation. Through the PIE lens, this means recognizing that a person’s challenges are often a product of their interactions with various systems—family dynamics, community networks, social services, and broader economic conditions. Empathy in social work, therefore, goes beyond understanding emotions; it requires grasping the complex interplay between the individual and their environment.
Empathic Action and Social Justice: Empathic action, the third component of the social work model, aligns strongly with the PIE framework. Social workers are called not just to understand service users’ emotional and cognitive states but also to address the external conditions affecting their well-being. For instance, empathic action may involve advocating for policy changes that reduce structural inequalities or organizing community resources to support underserved populations. By engaging with the PIE framework, social workers ensure that their empathic responses are grounded in efforts to improve the environments that contribute to service users’ struggles.
Empowerment and Systems Change: Viewing empathy through the PIE lens leads social workers to focus on empowerment. Rather than simply addressing individual symptoms of distress, social workers using empathy informed by PIE look at how service users can be supported in overcoming environmental barriers. This might involve helping service users navigate complex systems like healthcare, legal services, or housing assistance. By understanding the broader environmental challenges, social workers can empower people who using services to advocate for themselves and make sustainable changes in their lives.
A Social Work Model of Empathy:
The proposed model includes three interrelated components:
Affective Response: This is the involuntary, physiological reaction to another person’s emotions and actions, primarily driven by mirroring and mimicry.
Cognitive Processing: This involves the voluntary interpretation of the affective response, including self-awareness, mental flexibility, emotion regulation, and role-taking. Cognitive processing enables the individual to understand the other person’s perspective without losing their sense of self.
Conscious Decision-Making: This final step involves taking action based on the cognitive processing of the empathic experience. Empathy in social work goes beyond understanding; it requires empathic action that aligns with social justice principles.
These three components ensure that empathy is not just a feeling but a dynamic process that leads to meaningful, justice-oriented action, particularly through the PIE approach.
Empathic Action: A Social Work Imperative:
While many models of empathy stop at cognitive processing, the social work model asserts that empathy is incomplete without action. This reflects the discipline’s core commitment to social justice, requiring that social workers not only understand the experiences of others but also act to address inequalities and injustices.
Empathic action can occur at various levels—individual, community, and societal—and is crucial for empowering clients rather than fostering dependence. For example, instead of simply providing short-term assistance to a struggling family, a social worker might help them build sustainable solutions and advocate for broader systemic changes.
The Dynamic Nature of Empathy:
Empathy is not an all-or-nothing experience; its components may be present in varying degrees depending on the situation and individual capacity. While the affective response is automatic, cognitive processing and decision-making are influenced by factors like neurological health, socialisation, and practice.
Conclusion:
The social work model of empathy integrates interdisciplinary insights from neuroscience, psychology, and social work theory, positioning empathy as both a cognitive and moral process. This model emphasises the need for social workers to not only understand but also act upon empathic insights, with a clear focus on advancing social justice. By using this model, social workers can cultivate deeper empathy in themselves and their clients, promoting empowerment and systemic change. The proposed model also opens the door for further research and refinement, particularly in measuring empathy and its impact on social work outcomes.
This holistic approach to empathy not only enhances the service user-practitioner relationship but also strengthens the role of social work in advocating for equity and justice at all levels, making Person-in-Environment an essential lens through which empathy-driven action must be viewed.
In our daily interactions, whether at work or in personal relationships, the ability to listen effectively is one of the most powerful skills we can develop. It goes beyond just hearing the words spoken; it’s about truly understanding and empathising with the person speaking. Reflective, empathic, or active listening—whatever the name—focuses on one core objective: maximising connection and communication.
Reflective listening is a set of specific techniques designed to demonstrate that you’re fully engaged in a conversation, absorbing what is being said, and responding in a way that builds trust and rapport. This approach can turn even the most challenging conversations into constructive dialogues. When used together, these techniques create what Chris Voss, in his book Never Split the Difference, refers to as Tactical Empathy.
What is Tactical Empathy?
Tactical Empathy is not just about feeling for someone—it’s about actively showing that you understand and acknowledge their perspective. This skill is incredibly useful in negotiations, difficult conversations, and day-to-day interactions because it creates a bridge of trust and openness. It’s about making the other person feel heard, seen, and understood, which can defuse tension and foster collaboration.
At its core, Tactical Empathy involves using a combination of reflective listening techniques to improve the quality of conversations and deepen the connection with the other party. Here are the six key reflective listening techniques that make up this empathetic approach:
1. Effective Pauses
One of the most underappreciated tools in communication is silence. After posing a question—especially an open-ended one—it’s essential to pause and give the other person time to think and respond. Silence can feel uncomfortable, but it allows thoughts to develop and often leads to more profound responses.
Pausing also prevents you from filling in the gaps with your own words, ensuring that the other person has space to share their thoughts fully. It’s about controlling the conversation tempo and letting the other person drive.
2. Minimal Encouragers
These are small verbal cues like “mm-hmm,” “I see,” or “go on” that reassure the speaker you’re paying attention without interrupting the flow of conversation. While these back-channel cues show engagement, it’s important to use them sparingly. Overuse can become distracting or even annoying.
Minimal encouragers give the other person subtle permission to continue speaking, making them feel that they’re being heard without pushing the conversation too far off course.
3. Mirroring
Mirroring involves repeating the last few words that the other person said. While this might seem overly simplistic or even awkward in theory, in practice it’s a powerful way to build rapport. By mirroring, you encourage the other person to elaborate on their thoughts or emotions.
For instance, if a colleague says, “I’m really stressed about this project deadline,” you might respond with, “Stressed about the deadline?” This not only shows that you’re listening but also gives the person a chance to explore their feelings more deeply.
4. Labeling
Labeling involves identifying the emotions or feelings behind what the person is saying. It’s a way to express understanding without making assumptions. For example, if someone seems anxious about a situation, you might say, “It sounds like you’re feeling overwhelmed.”
Even if you misidentify the emotion, labeling opens the door for clarification. The person might correct you, which still signals that you’re tuned in enough to care about their emotional state.
5. Paraphrasing
Paraphrasing is like mirroring but with a slight twist—you’re repeating what the person said, but in your own words. This technique allows you to clarify understanding while reflecting the key points back to the speaker.
For example, if a friend says, “I don’t know what to do about my job situation, it’s been stressing me out,” you might paraphrase by saying, “So it sounds like you’re feeling unsure about how to handle your work challenges, and it’s been weighing on you?”
Paraphrasing helps to ensure that you’ve accurately captured their meaning while also giving them the chance to refine their thoughts.
6. Summarising
Summarising is a technique that combines paraphrasing and labeling. It involves restating the main points of what the other person has shared, often at the end of a conversation or after a significant exchange, to clarify and affirm that you’ve understood.
The goal here is to get the person to respond with “That’s right,” signaling that you’ve captured their thoughts and feelings accurately. For example, if someone is discussing a difficult decision, you might summarise by saying, “So, you’re feeling conflicted because you care about the outcome, but you’re also uncertain about the next steps.” When they respond with, “That’s right,” you’ve effectively demonstrated Tactical Empathy.
The Power of Combining Techniques
While each of these techniques—pausing, minimal encouragers, mirroring, labeling, paraphrasing, and summarising—works well individually, they are most powerful when used together. By layering these methods, you show a deep level of engagement, which makes the other person feel valued and understood.
In high-stakes situations, such as negotiations or crucial conversations, Tactical Empathy is especially effective. Chris Voss emphasizes that when people feel heard, they are more likely to trust you, which can lead to better outcomes for both parties. However, this approach isn’t limited to formal settings. Whether you’re talking with a friend, a colleague, or even a stranger, combining these reflective listening techniques can transform the quality of your interactions.
Conclusion
Tactical Empathy isn’t just about listening—it’s about engaging with people at a deeper level. By applying these reflective listening techniques, you create a safe space for others to express themselves while also building a stronger connection.
By combining these six techniques, you’ll not only become a more effective communicator but also a more empathetic and understanding conversation partner. The people you interact with will feel seen, heard, and appreciated, and that’s the cornerstone of meaningful, impactful communication.
So, the next time you find yourself in a conversation—whether it’s a difficult negotiation or a casual chat—practice Tactical Empathy and see the difference it makes.
In the field of social work, especially when it comes to youth services, a crucial question arises: how can we empower young individuals, especially those in challenging circumstances? The answer lies not just in expertise and resources but also in understanding the different dynamics that professionals, regardless of gender, bring to the table. With men making up only 15-20% of the workforce in social work, it becomes important to ask whether more male representation could be beneficial, particularly in working with young men in vulnerable situations.
The Impact of Gender in Youth Social Work
Social work is often seen as a profession dominated by women, as mentioned in a conversation with Curtis Powell and Jason Barnes, experienced social workers from the UK. Both highlighted the significance of male figures, especially when working with adolescents who may be lacking positive male role models in their lives. Many young boys in social care grow up in environments without active father figures, which can make a male social worker’s presence crucial for building trust and offering a balanced perspective.
Powell, drawing from his work in the Youth Offending Service and adolescent teams, emphasised that simply being a man can sometimes bring balance into a situation. He noted that many young boys need a big brother or a father figure, rather than more nurturing approaches, which they often receive from their mothers. For these boys, a male social worker can resonate on a different level, providing guidance in a manner that aligns with their need for structure and a more direct communication style.
Beyond Gender: The Power of Diverse Representation
The discussion on the necessity for more men in social work is not a critique of the invaluable contributions women make to the profession. Instead, it’s an acknowledgment that having a workforce that reflects the diverse makeup of the society it serves, whether in terms of gender, race, or cultural background, leads to more effective outcomes.
Barnes pointed out that male social workers can sometimes more effectively engage fathers or teenage boys who may be resistant to opening up to female professionals due to cultural or personal reasons. However, both Powell and Barnes agreed that gender alone doesn’t dictate success in social work—it is the combination of skills, personal experiences, and the ability to relate that makes the difference.
Breaking Stereotypes and Changing Perceptions
One of the barriers to getting more men into social work is the profession’s image. Social work, particularly with children and families, is often associated with care, which society tends to stereotype as a feminine role. As Barnes noted, social workers aren’t as visible in media or public discussions as professions like the police or teachers, making it harder for young men to see themselves in these roles.
To counter this, both Powell and Barnes emphasised the importance of changing the narrative around social work. This involves showcasing the diverse faces within the field and highlighting the real impact that social workers have on people’s lives, including those of young men and boys. More proactive recruitment campaigns targeting men and addressing misconceptions about the profession could help bridge this gap.
Empowering Young People with a Holistic Approach
At the heart of the discussion lies the need to empower young people by providing them with role models and professionals they can relate to. Whether through male or female social workers, the goal is to meet the unique needs of each individual, particularly those in vulnerable or crisis situations. Young people, especially boys navigating challenging environments, often need a balance of nurture and structure, which a diverse team of social workers can provide.
In conclusion, while the gender of a social worker can sometimes make a difference in engagement and trust-building, the true measure of success in empowering youth comes from creating an inclusive environment where professionals bring their whole selves—regardless of gender—to the task of helping young people manage their circumstances and thrive.
In contemporary social work, many practitioners may overlook psychodynamic therapy, seeing it as an outdated relic in a field increasingly dominated by short-term, manualized interventions. Yet, this is precisely what Faye Mishna, Melissa Van Wert, and Kenta Asakura explore in their article “The Best Kept Secret in Social Work: Empirical Support for Contemporary Psychodynamic Social Work Practice.” They argue that psychodynamic approaches remain not only relevant but empirically supported and well-suited for addressing complex, real-world cases.
Psychodynamic Therapy: More Than Freud
Historically linked to psychoanalysis, psychodynamic therapy has evolved considerably since the days of Sigmund Freud. The approach now encompasses several theories, including self psychology, intersubjectivity, and relational theory. These contemporary frameworks focus on the therapeutic relationship as the primary tool for change, positioning the service user within their broader social environment. This aligns well with social work’s commitment to person-in-environment and relational practice, emphasising that individuals cannot be understood in isolation from their relationships and societal contexts (Mishna et al., 2013).
Relevance to Social Work Practice
One of the strongest arguments made by Mishna and her colleagues is that psychodynamic practice resonates deeply with the core principles of social work. The therapeutic relationship—central to psychodynamic theory—is the very foundation of social work practice. Whether practitioners are working with children, adults, or families, establishing a strong, empathic connection is key to facilitating personal growth and change (Mishna et al., 2013).
Moreover, psychodynamic approaches go beyond symptom management to address the complex interplay between a service user’s internal world and their external relationships. For example, self psychology emphasizes the importance of “self-object” experiences, where individuals develop a cohesive sense of self through empathic connections with others (Kohut, 1977). This mirrors social work’s holistic approach to understanding the client’s needs in their full context.
Empirical Support for Psychodynamic Therapy
Contrary to the misconception that psychodynamic therapy lacks empirical backing, a growing body of evidence supports its efficacy. Mishna and her co-authors review multiple studies demonstrating the effectiveness of psychodynamic therapy in treating a variety of mental health conditions, including depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and substance abuse disorders. For instance, research by Leichsenring et al. (2006) and a meta-analysis by Abbass et al. (2006) revealed that both short-term and long-term psychodynamic interventions can significantly improve mental health outcomes (Mishna et al., 2013).
Moreover, research has shown that the benefits of psychodynamic therapy often endure long after the treatment concludes. Unlike some brief therapeutic interventions, which may offer only temporary symptom relief, psychodynamic therapy aims to facilitate deeper, more lasting changes in service users’ psychological functioning (Town et al., 2012).
Addressing Complex, Real-World Cases
One of the strengths of psychodynamic practice is its ability to accommodate the complexity of real-world cases. Social workers often encounter clients dealing with intersecting oppressions and multiple, co-occurring issues—ranging from trauma and mental illness to systemic barriers such as poverty and discrimination. Psychodynamic therapy, with its focus on deep relational work and long-term change, is well-suited to this context (Mishna et al., 2013).
While manualised treatment models like cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) may offer clear pathways to symptom reduction, they may fall short in addressing the broader relational and social contexts of service users’ lives. Mishna et al. argue that social work education should incorporate psychodynamic theory more robustly to prepare future practitioners for the multifaceted challenges they will face in the field (Mishna et al., 2013).
Conclusion
In revisiting psychodynamic approaches, Mishna, Van Wert, and Asakura offer a timely reminder that psychodynamic social work is far from obsolete. The therapeutic relationship, person-in-environment perspective, and focus on deep psychological change make this approach especially relevant in today’s practice. As evidence continues to support the effectiveness of psychodynamic therapy, it is time for social work to rediscover its potential and integrate it into both practice and education.
By raising awareness of psychodynamic theory’s relevance and its empirical foundation, we can ensure that this “best-kept secret” in social work becomes widely known and utilised for the benefit of service users and practitioners alike.
References
Abbass, A. A., Hancock, J. T., Henderson, J., & Kisely, S. (2006). Short-term psychodynamic psychotherapies for common mental disorders. Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, (4).
Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. International Universities Press.
Leichsenring, F., Hiller, W., Weissberg, M., & Leibing, E. (2006). Cognitive behavioral therapy and psychodynamic psychotherapy: Techniques, indications and empirical evidence. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 60(3), 233–260.
Mishna, F., Van Wert, M., & Asakura, K. (2013). The best kept secret in social work: Empirical support for contemporary psychodynamic social work practice. Journal of Social Work Practice, 27(3), 289–303.
Town, J. M., Diener, M. J., Abbass, A., Leichsenring, F., Driessen, E., & Rabung, S. (2012). A meta-analysis of psychodynamic psychotherapy outcomes: Evaluating the effects of research-specific procedures. Psychotherapy, 49(3), 276–290.
Anti-oppressive practice (AOP) in social work is a framework designed to challenge and address the complex forms of oppression experienced by marginalised individuals. This approach focuses on analyzing and transforming the unequal power dynamics within social systems, aiming to provide more equitable outcomes for those who have been historically disadvantaged by social, economic, political, and cultural structures. The principles of AOP are not only a guide for action but also a theoretical lens through which practitioners can understand and respond to the lived realities of oppression.
Understanding Oppression and its Complex Nature
Oppression manifests in the lives of individuals who are marginalized due to social divisions such as race, class, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and age. Social work, informed by anti-oppressive principles, draws upon multiple disciplines—sociology, psychology, history, philosophy, and politics—to provide a comprehensive understanding of how these divisions intersect and shape people’s lives. According to Burke and Harrison, oppression is not only a personal issue but also one deeply rooted in societal structures. The challenge for social workers is to recognize these structures and work towards dismantling them in both individual cases and broader systems.
Defining Anti-Oppressive Practice
Anti-oppressive practice is a dynamic and evolving approach that involves critically examining how power operates at personal, organizational, and structural levels. It requires an understanding of the relationships between different social divisions and how these divisions influence the life chances of individuals. For instance, a black woman may face unique challenges stemming from the intersection of racism and sexism, which can further complicate her access to resources or support.
As Clifford (1995) explains, anti-oppressive practice must address both personal and broader social structures that perpetuate inequality. These structures can include health, education, and political systems, which often provide benefits and resources to dominant groups while excluding or disadvantaging others. By recognising these power imbalances, social workers can begin to address the root causes of oppression and work toward more just outcomes.
Core Principles of Anti-Oppressive Practice
The key principles of anti-oppressive practice, as outlined by Clifford and further discussed by Burke and Harrison, offer a comprehensive framework for practitioners. These principles are essential for both understanding the nature of oppression and guiding effective intervention:
Social Difference: Differences arise due to unequal power relations between dominant and subordinated groups. Recognising these differences is crucial for understanding how oppression operates across various social divisions.
Linking the Personal and the Political: Personal experiences are shaped by broader social and political structures. By placing an individual’s life within a wider societal context, social workers can address the systemic issues contributing the challenges of the service users.
Power: Power is both a social and personal construct, influencing relationships at all levels. In practice, this involves understanding how individuals and groups gain or are denied access to power and resources. Social workers must be aware of their own power and how it impacts their relationships with service users.
Historical and Geographical Location: Individuals’ experiences are situated in specific historical and geographical contexts. Acknowledging these contexts helps social workers understand how societal factors shape individual experiences and interactions.
Reflexivity: Social workers must continuously reflect on their own identities, values, and power dynamics. This principle emphasises the importance of self-awareness in practice, ensuring that practitioners remain conscious of how their own social positions affect their interactions with service users.
Putting Theory into Practice: The Case of Amelia
The application of anti-oppressive principles is best illustrated through case studies, such as Amelia’s story discussed by Burke and Harrison. Amelia, a young black woman, experienced domestic violence, homelessness, drug addiction, and the eventual removal of her child into foster care. Her story highlights the ways in which multiple forms of oppression—race, gender, and class—intersect to shape her experiences. Despite her attempts to navigate these challenges, Amelia’s needs were not fully understood or addressed by the social care system.
In this case, social workers focused on Amelia’s psychiatric and psychological assessments, largely ignoring the broader structural factors that contributed to her situation, such as racism and poverty. The failure to consider her experiences of oppression as a young black woman resulted in a care plan that recommended the adoption of her child, further disempowering her.
The anti-oppressive approach demands that social workers recognize the interplay of social divisions and challenge the ways in which power is exercised within the system. Reflexivity, critical analysis of power, and a holistic understanding of Amelia’s life circumstances could have led to a different, more empowering intervention.
Challenges and Opportunities for Change
Anti-oppressive practice is not without its challenges. Social workers often operate within systems that are constrained by financial, legislative, and organisational limitations. The tension between resource-driven services and the needs of marginalised people can lead to conflicting demands on practitioners.
However, the power of AOP lies in its commitment to challenge these constraints. By adopting a person-centered philosophy and an egalitarian value system, social workers can begin to create opportunities for change, both at the micro and macro levels. The process of challenging oppression may be painful or met with resistance, but it is a necessary step toward creating more opportunities and just outcomes for service users.
Conclusion
Anti-oppressive practice is a critical framework for addressing inequality in social work. By understanding the complex nature of oppression, examining power dynamics, and continually reflecting on practice, social workers can move beyond merely describing oppression to actively challenging and transforming it. While the path may be difficult, the principles of AOP provide a guide for creating meaningful change in the lives of individuals and communities.
Social work, like many professions, continuously evolves to meet the complexities of human experience. With multiple models and theories guiding practice, it is often difficult for social workers to determine which approach best suits the unique circumstances of the people they supporting. The article Narrative Social Work: Conversations Between Theory and Practice by Karen D. Roscoe, Alexander M. Carson, and Iolo Madoc-Jones offers a compelling solution: a narrative-based approach to social work that encourages a dynamic conversation between the theories of social work and the practical realities of working with service users.
The Complexity of Social Work
Social workers frequently draw from diverse models, such as psychodynamic theory, systems theory, or care management, to address the needs of service users. However, as the article points out, these theoretical frameworks often reflect dominant social narratives rather than the lived experiences of service users. This selective use of theories can sometimes distance professionals from the actual needs and stories of those they serve, leading to an imbalance in power dynamics. In response, Roscoe and colleagues suggest that narrative social work can restore balance by creating a space for both social workers and service users to share and reflect on their stories.
Defining Narrative Social Work
Narrative social work is a method that emphasizes the sharing of stories between the social worker and the service user. It involves three key stages: engagement, deconstruction, and re-authoring. These stages allow for a more democratic and reflective practice, where the social worker does not impose a dominant theoretical framework but collaborates with the service user to create new meanings and possibilities.
Engagement: The process begins with the social worker and service user sharing their stories. This is critical because it establishes mutual respect and positions the service user’s narrative as equally important as any theoretical model. The emphasis is placed on listening and understanding the service user’s perspective without prematurely applying labels or diagnoses.
Deconstruction: In this stage, the stories shared are carefully examined to uncover underlying assumptions, cultural influences, and power dynamics. This helps both the social worker and the service user to challenge taken-for-granted ideas that may be limiting progress. For instance, in the case of Mrs. Roberts, a caregiver struggling with guilt and fear about seeking help, the deconstruction process involved exploring how societal norms about gender roles influenced her sense of duty as a wife.
Re-authoring: Finally, the narrative is re-authored in collaboration with the service user. This stage empowers the individual to imagine alternative ways of understanding their situation and opens the possibility for change. The social worker facilitates the creation of a new narrative that supports the service user’s autonomy and personal development.
The Value of Narrative in Social Work
Roscoe et al. argue that narrative approaches allow social workers to engage more authentically with service users. Unlike traditional methods that often rely on diagnosing or categorizing, narrative social work recognizes the complexity of human experience and embraces the idea that individuals’ stories are shaped by broader cultural, social, and political contexts. This aligns with anti-oppressive and anti-discriminatory practices, which emphasise the importance of understanding the service user’s cultural background and societal influences.
Moreover, the article highlights that narrative-based interventions can lead to significant personal transformation. In Mrs. Roberts’ case, for example, the social worker helped her re-author her story, moving away from feeling trapped by her caregiving duties to accepting support and making choices that aligned with her well-being. This shift in narrative is not merely theoretical but has real-life implications for improving the quality of care and emotional well-being of service users.
A Model for Reflective Practice
One of the most critical aspects of narrative social work is its potential to foster reflective practice among social workers. By engaging in the storytelling process with the people they supporting, social workers are encouraged to reflect on their assumptions and biases. This form of practice pushes professionals to move beyond applying ready-made solutions or adhering strictly to one theoretical model. Instead, narrative social work asks social workers to remain open to multiple perspectives and to co-create solutions that are rooted in the lived experiences of their service users.
Conclusion
Narrative Social Work: Conversations Between Theory and Practice provides a meaningful contribution to the field of social work by advocating for a more holistic and flexible approach to practice. Through the use of narrative, social workers can engage with service users in ways that are respectful, empowering, and transformative. By prioritising the stories of individuals, narrative social work not only enriches the practice of social work but also ensures that service users are seen, heard, and valued as active participants in their care.
The Homelessness Monitor: Scotland 2021 provides an extensive analysis of the factors driving homelessness, focusing on the effects of economic policies, housing issues, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The report highlights both the progress made and the challenges still faced by Scotland in its mission to reduce homelessness, particularly its “core” forms like rough sleeping, sofa surfing, and unsuitable temporary accommodation.
Economic and Policy Context
Prior to the pandemic, Scotland had seen an increase in statutory homelessness, which refers to households legally recognized as homeless. Between 2016 and 2020, homelessness increased by 10%, with 27,571 households classified as legally homeless in 2020-21. However, the pandemic contributed to a temporary decline in homelessness rates due to government interventions such as eviction bans and increased welfare support. Despite this, homelessness was not uniformly reduced across Scotland, with areas like Glasgow experiencing less reduction compared to regions like Edinburgh.
The number of people in temporary accommodation, though initially stable at around 10,000, surged during the pandemic. By March 2021, over 13,000 households were living in temporary accommodation, an increase that reflected both an immediate need for safe housing during the pandemic and systemic issues within housing supply and distribution.
Core Homelessness and Rough Sleeping
The most severe forms of homelessness—referred to as “core homelessness”—affect individuals who are rough sleeping, sofa surfing, or living in unsuitable accommodations like hostels or bed and breakfasts (B&Bs). In 2019, an estimated 14,250 households experienced core homelessness, a rate that is lower in Scotland (0.57%) compared to England (0.94%) and Wales (0.66%). Sofa surfing was the most prevalent form, with over 7,900 people affected. Rough sleeping was estimated at 900 individuals nightly, but the pandemic led to significant reductions, particularly in cities like Glasgow and Edinburgh.
The Impact of COVID-19
The COVID-19 pandemic forced the Scottish Government to implement emergency measures to house rough sleepers and those in shared accommodations. The introduction of hotel-based housing and the provision of additional funding to homeless services helped reduce rough sleeping to historically low levels during the pandemic. However, issues like exploitation and crime in some temporary accommodations, particularly in Glasgow, raised concerns about the safety of individuals housed in these emergency solutions.
One positive outcome from the pandemic was the enhanced cooperation between local authorities, homelessness services, and health and social care organizations. This collaboration resulted in better access to support services for individuals with complex needs, although challenges remain in sustaining these efforts beyond the pandemic.
Policy Measures and Recommendations
Several policy initiatives are highlighted as crucial in the fight against homelessness. The “Ending Homelessness Together” plan, introduced by the Scottish Government in 2018, aims to eliminate homelessness by focusing on rapid rehousing and prevention. Local authorities developed Rapid Rehousing Transition Plans (RRTPs) to reduce reliance on temporary accommodations by prioritizing settled housing options. However, the implementation of these plans has been hindered by resource limitations, and many authorities have expressed concern over the underfunding of these initiatives.
Housing First programs, which offer permanent housing to individuals with complex needs, have shown promise, with over 500 tenancies created since the program’s inception. Tenancy sustainment rates are high, and the approach has been widely adopted by local authorities, though challenges remain in scaling these efforts.
Moreover, the Unsuitable Accommodation Order, which limits the use of B&Bs and hotels for families and pregnant women, was extended to cover all households. Despite delays due to the pandemic, this extension marks a significant step in improving temporary accommodation conditions for homeless individuals.
Future Directions
The report emphasizes the need for sustained investment in housing and homelessness prevention measures to achieve long-term reductions in homelessness. Increasing the supply of affordable housing, particularly in high-demand areas like Edinburgh, is seen as essential. Additionally, policies that raise Local Housing Allowance rates and improve access to the private rental market are identified as key to preventing homelessness in the future.
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of flexibility in responding to homelessness and the need for integrated approaches across sectors. While Scotland has made notable progress in reducing core homelessness, particularly rough sleeping, ongoing challenges, such as the availability of affordable housing and the full implementation of rapid rehousing policies, remain central to addressing the homelessness crisis.
Conclusion
Scotland’s journey toward ending homelessness has been marked by significant policy innovation and progress, yet challenges persist, particularly in light of the economic and social disruptions caused by the pandemic. The Homelessness Monitor: Scotland 2021 underscores that while Scotland’s approach to homelessness is more progressive than that of its UK counterparts, sustained investment, robust implementation of homelessness prevention policies, and an expansion of affordable housing are critical to achieving lasting reductions in homelessness.
In the years ahead, Scotland’s ability to maintain its focus on rapid rehousing, support vulnerable individuals, and work collaboratively across government and non-government sectors will determine whether it can become a global leader in ending homelessness altogether.
This study conducts a systematic review to examine the impact of social support on the mental health of single fathers, a demographic often overlooked within family dynamics. The research aims to expose the challenges single fathers face in accessing social support and the implications for social work practice. Despite the rising prevalence of single father households, traditional gender roles and societal norms often marginalize these fathers within caregiving contexts, limiting their access to needed support systems.
A comprehensive search across five online databases led to the identification of 14 studies that fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The critical analysis of these papers, encompassing responses from 4,174 single fathers, reveals that while single fathers generally exhibit better financial stability than single mothers, they face significant mental health challenges due to job-insecurity and limited workplace support. These challenges result in higher psychological distress and poorer health outcomes compared to partnered fathers. Socio-economic status plays a crucial role, with single fathers benefiting less from informal social support networks and more from financial stability.
The review identifies two main themes: “Family Structure” and “Buffer against Socio-cultural and Economic Factors.” The first theme explores how gender, household composition, and socio-economic support influence the well-being of single fathers compared to single mothers and partnered fathers. The second theme highlights the role of social support in mitigating mental health challenges, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, which exacerbated socio-economic and cultural stressors for single fathers.
The findings emphasize the need for targeted interventions and policy measures that enhance social support networks and alleviate economic pressures for single fathers. Social work practice must consider the varied socio-economic and mental health challenges single fathers face, promoting resilience through strong support networks and flexible employment policies. This comprehensive approach can enhance the well-being of single fathers and contribute to healthier family dynamics. Future research should focus on identifying specific intervention areas to ensure support mechanisms are responsive to the evolving needs of single parents.
This study explores the realm of single fathers’ mental health by conducting a systematic review of existing research. It seeks to shed light on what the literature reveals about the impact of social support on the mental well-being of single fathers and examines the implications for social work practice. Single fatherhood represents a significant but often overlooked demographic within the broader landscape of family dynamics (Barker, 1994; Katz, 1979; Shorey & Pereira, 2023). Existing definitions of single fatherhood vary (Letablier and Wall, 2018), depending on the context, marital status, legal and residential arrangements, financial responsibility, parental involvement, cultural and social factors and personal circumstances. Based on UK government definitions (ONS, 2016, 2023), in this paper single fathers are considered as fathers who undertake primary caregiving responsibilities for their child(ren) without the presence of a spouse or partner in the household. Regardless of the expanding number of single-father households, societal norms and institutional practices often perpetuate traditional gender roles, relegating fathers to secondary caregiving roles and prioritising mothers as primary caregivers (Christie, 2006; Featherstone, 2009).
Existing literature (Bradshaw & Miller, 1991; Greif, 1992; Janikowski, 2021; Shorey & Pereira, 2023) underscores the challenges faced by single fathers in accessing support and recognition within social work systems, which are critical for their mental health outcomes, well-being and resilience (Chiu et al., 2018; George & Wilding, 1972; Louie & Crombrugghe, 2017). Despite evolving societal attitudes towards father involvement, deep-rooted biases and stereotypes persist, leading to a lack of visibility and engagement with single fathers in social work practice (Janikowski, 2021; Shapiro & Krysik, 2010). Research indicates that social work services tend to focus predominantly on mothers, with fathers being marginalised and excluded from meaningful participation in decision-making processes (Ashley et al., 2006; Brewsaugh, Masyn & Salloum, 2018). Moreover, single fathers are often subjected to societal narratives that portray them as inadequate caregivers or financial burdens on the state (Bradshaw & Miller, 1991; La Rossa & La Rossa, 1981), further complicating their mental health challenges (Garner, 2009). Such narratives exacerbate the challenges faced by single fathers in seeking support for their mental health needs. Despite the increasing acknowledgment of the importance of social support, single fathers continue to encounter barriers in accessing and utilising support services. Socio-economic disparities, cultural stigma, and institutional biases often inhibit help-seeking behaviours and limit access to support networks (Eickmeyer, 2017; Shapiro & Krysik, 2010).
In light of these findings, there is a pressing need to understand and address the relationship between social support and the mental health needs of single fathers within the social work context. This review will highlight the existing gaps, biases, and the impact of socio-economic and cultural factors on their mental well-being. Thus a literature review to explore how social support impacts the mental health of single fathers has been undertaken.
The research question was developed based on the PICO framework (Booth et al., 2022; Johnson et al., 2020; Maher et al., 2018; Taylor et al., 2015) to create specific search terms and the systematic search strategy. This approach facilitated a preliminary scoping search to identify the impact of social support on single fathers’ mental health (Karolinska Institutet University Library, 2022). Table 1 outlines the key concepts and search terms used, providing a clear framework for the literature search.
This revealed significant research gaps in the literature; therefore this dissertation investigates how social support affects the mental well-being of single fathers and examines the implications for social work practice.
Search Strategy:
The search strategy employed systematic methods to comprehensively summarise and synthesise evidence on the research question using predefined approaches and relevant databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, APA PsycInfo, and Social Science Premium Collection) (Booth et al., 2022; Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Taylor et al., 2015). Clear inclusion and exclusion criteria guided the search and selection process. The search terms, determined through a preliminary scoping review, included “single father,” “social support,” and “mental health,” with social support defined as emotional, informational, and instrumental assistance from social networks (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Cohen et al., 2000; Kent et al., 2018). Boolean operators and truncation symbols were used to enhance search outcomes (Shorey et al., 2023). Table 2 lists the key terms and articles found in the process.
The PRISMA Flow Diagram (Table 3) illustrates the article screening procedure, beginning with an initial abstract scan and progressing to a thorough review of full articles as inclusion and exclusion criteria were implemented (Booth et al., 2022; Johnson et al., 2020; Maher et al., 2018; Paige et al., 2020). It also highlights the inclusion and exclusion of the articles, providing the rationale for these decisions. This process involved assessing the data points to ensure they were relevant to the research question.
Studies considered for analysis:
The selected papers presented diverse perspectives on how social support impacts the mental health of single fathers, adhering to the research question and highlighting key themes (Booth et al., 2022; Taylor et al., 2015). The journal articles were organized in the EndNote 20 reference management tool (The EndNote Team, 2013). Key themes were identified to gain a comprehensive understanding of the topic (Booth et al., 2022; Naeem et al., 2023).
Eligibility Criteria:
Eligible studies were contemporary – prior 10 years, peer-reviewed primary research in English due to the researcher’s language barrier. Inclusion criteria were single fathers regardless of age, geographic location, socio-economic status (SES), education, sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, length of single parenthood, raising children of any age, divorced, separated, widowed, or never-married, with any custody percentage, and living alone with their children. Excluded were secondary and correlational research, thesis papers, conference proceedings, books, editorials, and reports (Shorey et al., 2023).
Quality Appraisal:
The researcher appraised the selected articles using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) checklist (Appendix 1) for systematic reviews (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, 2018), evaluating study objectives, methodologies, researchers’ reflexivity, ethical considerations, data analysis rigor, findings, and overall research value (Shorey et al., 2023). Despite varying degrees of relevance, all studies were included to enhance the rigor of the review (Walsh & Downe, 2005).
Data Extraction:
Led by the PRISMA checklist (Liberati et al., 2009), the researcher extracted study details—such as author, publication year, study location, methods, analysis and data collection, population and main findings. Then, themes were identified through a detailed coding process, where each article was read thoroughly. This involved using both digital and paper notes, connecting themes, and integrating them into a comprehensive document (Booth et al., 2022; Shorey et al., 2023; Naeem et al., 2023; Taylor et al., 2015).
Ethical Considerations:
Systematic reviewers must accurately represent the perspectives of authors and participants to identify missing viewpoints and evaluate the relevance of their findings to specific contexts. This involves considering how publication and search biases may influence results and reflecting on their own biases during the review process. Selective and informed inclusion should guide decision-making, and transparency is crucial for ethical impact (Suri, 2020). Publication bias occurs when study results are not published due to their findings’ direction or strength, often because researchers lack access to necessary literature, leading to biases that affect evidence synthesis (Dickersin & Min, 1993). To mitigate researcher bias, the CASP checklist was utilised (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, 2018).
Limitations:
This review acknowledges potential omissions due to unclear titles or abstracts, inadequate indexing, and various restrictions. It highlights the lack of research on racial and ethnic differences in single-fatherhood experiences, suggesting future studies in this area (Shorey et al., 2023). Limitations include small sample sizes, cross-sectional designs, biases from self-reported data, and demographic or geographic restrictions (Booth et al., 2022; Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Thematic analysis, while flexible, may lead to inconsistency and incoherence in theme formulation and cannot assert conclusions about language usage (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Holloway & Todres, 2003; Nowell et al., 2017).
From the database and manual searching 298 studies were identified. After removing 130 duplicate studies and excluding 75 studies due to their publication dates, 93 studies remained for title and abstract screening by the researcher. During this screening, 55 studies were excluded for being irrelevant to the research question. Subsequently, the full texts of the remaining 38 studies were assessed against the eligibility criteria, resulting in the exclusion of 24 more studies (Shorey et al., 2023). The 14 selected studies were peer-reviewed, primary research, conducted in Canada (n=1), Germany (n=3), Iceland (n=1), Israel (n=1), Japan (n=1), New Zealand (n=1), South Korea (n=2), Sweden (n=1), United Kingdom (n=2), and United States (n=1). A total of 4,174 single father’s responses were analysed.
The critical review of the selected literature shows single mothers face poorer mental health, higher unemployment, and greater socio-economic deprivation than single fathers, who are generally more financially stable. However, single fathers face significant mental health challenges due to job-insecurity and limited workplace-support, leading to higher psychological distress and poorer health outcomes than partnered-fathers, with SES playing a crucial role. These findings were described in two main themes and five subthemes below.
Theme 1: Family Structure
This theme highlights how gender, household-composition and socio-economic support impacts the well-being of single fathers in comparison to single mothers and partnered-fathers.
Mind Matters: Exploring Gender and Economic Differences in Single Parenthood
Research comparing the mental health of single parents reveals significant differences in their experiences and outcomes. Collings et al. (2014) found that single mothers endured significantly poorer mental health compared to single fathers, due to higher rates of having preschool-aged children, unemployment, and socio-economic deprivation. Kong et al. (2017) highlighted higher rates of depression and suicidal ideation in single mothers, while single fathers showed higher prevalence of alcohol dependence, influenced by SES. Chiu et al. (2017) noted that while single fathers tended to have a less healthy lifestyle and diet, they were also less likely to be diagnosed with mood or anxiety disorders than single mothers. However, Rattay et al. (2017) found no significant differences in self-rated health between single parents, suggesting that partner status impacts health similarly across genders, which may downplay the nuanced challenges single mothers face. Fritzell et al. (2019) indicated that health disparities were more pronounced among single parents than in two-parent families, with greater differences observed among mothers. Quantitative analysis of parental social support, depression, anxiety, and parenting stress (Prokupek, 2023) revealed similar outcomes for both mothers and fathers. Results indicated that fathers typically experienced positive reactions from others, with negative feedback being rare and isolated. Overall, fathers exhibited good well-being and received comparable levels of social support to mothers in similar circumstances (Jones et al., 2022).
Collings et al. (2014) showed that single fathers have higher homeownership and lower socio-economic deprivation when compared to single mothers (Kong et al., 2017). Single fathers are also more likely to be employed, whereas single mothers are twice as likely to have a preschool-age child and work part-time (Chum et al., 2022) and benefit more from informal social support (Chiu et al., 2017; Chum et al., 2022). Single fathers face greater challenges receiving employer support for childcare responsibilities, while single mothers benefit from greater workplace flexibility due to traditional gender roles and often working low-skill jobs. However, single fathers in high-skilled employment adapt better to work-caring responsibilities (Itzayeva, 2021). Chum et al. (2022) noted that single fathers experience more significant mental-health decline with job-insecurity compared to single mothers. SES is linked to increased alcohol-dependence risk among single mothers and poor mental health among single fathers (Kong et al., 2017). Foreign-born single mothers, with sole custody arrangements, face the poorest socio-economic conditions and the highest rates of mental health issues, exacerbating their vulnerabilities (Fritzell et al., 2019).
Fatherhood in Contrast: Unpacking Mental Health and Socio-economic Differences between Single and Partnered Fathers
Research consistently indicates poorer mental health of single fathers compared to their partnered counterparts. Collings et al. (2014) found single fathers experienced higher psychological distress due to lower home-ownership rates and inadequate social support. Kong and Kim (2015) noted severe stress, depressive symptoms, and poorer quality of life among them, exacerbated by demanding socio-economic conditions. Chiu et al. (2017) and Dhungel (2023) highlighted lower educational attainment, higher unemployment and poorer health behaviours, correlating with their prevalent mental health issues. The prevalence of depression and suicidal ideation was notably higher, with poor SES being a significant factor (Kong et al., 2017). Frisch-Volkert et al. (2020) reported higher levels of mental disorders and psychopathological symptoms, supporting findings from Thorsteinsdottir et al. (2018) and Rattay et al. (2017) regarding escalating anxiety and depression and custodial father’s high levels of anxiety and worry (Fritzell et al., 2019). Despite these difficulties, Tsfati et al. (2022) found that they experienced benefits such as reduced family conflict and stronger relationships with their children. Overall, single fathers face greater mental-health challenges than their partnered peers due to deep-rooted socio-economic disparities and limited social support (Collings et al., 2014; Chiu et al., 2017; Dhungel, 2023; Frisch-Volkert et al., 2020; Kong et al., 2017; Kong & Kim, 2015; Rattay et al., 2017; Thorsteinsdottir et al., 2018; Tsfati et al., 2022). Single fathers face greater socio-economic and financial challenges than partnered parents, as illustrated by Collings et al. (2014), with home-ownership rates of 37.7–45.4% and 72.9–74.1%, respectively. Single fathers, experience pronounced social disadvantages, such as lower educational accomplishment, lower income, and higher unemployment rates (Chiu et al., 2017). These factors contribute to a troublingly higher incidence of poor self-rated well-being among single fathers when compared to partnered fathers (Chiu et al., 2017). The economic strain on single fathers is further compounded by lifestyle; namely unhealthy diet and sparse medical examinations, correlating with increased psychological distress (Dhungel, 2023).
Theme 2: Buffer against socio-cultural and economic factors
This theme highlights how social support cushion single fathers’ mental health against social, economic and unforeseen pandemic related stressors.
Community Armour: Protecting Single Fathers from Socio-Cultural Strains and Parental Stressors
Research shows that single fathers are disproportionately affected by negative socio-cultural factors, resulting in a significantly poorer quality of life compared to married fathers. This disparity is driven by lifestyle, precarious employment status, lower education, and profound lack of formal support (Chiu et al., 2017; Collings et al., 2014; Dhungel, 2023; Itzayeva, 2021; Kong & Kim, 2015; Kong et al., 2017; Tsfati et al., 2022). Additionally, being a foreign-born single father may heighten the risk-factors regarding their well-being (Fritzell et al., 2019). They experience higher rates of anxiety (Thorsteinsdottir et al., 2018) depression, stress (Tsfati et al., 2022), back pain, smoking, lack of physical activity, neglected dental health (Rattay et al., 2017) and challenges due to perceived male gender norms as providers and caregivers (Itzayeva, 2021, Tsfati et al., 2022). Although, strong social networks are essential for helping single parents navigate the complexities of solo parenting and mitigate stressors, single fathers often find themselves with severely limited access to these essential resources (Collings et al., 2014; Jones et al., 2022;; Tsfati et al., 2022; Thorsteinsdottir et al., 2018). This lack of support not only heightens their vulnerability but also amplifies the stigma and discrimination they face (Jones et al., 2022).
Strength in Numbers: How Social Support Fortifies Single Fathers against Socio-economic Stressors
Social support is essential, but often insufficient for single parents, acting as a fragile buffer against the overwhelming socio-economic stressors that significantly undermine their physical and mental health (Kong et al., 2017). Research consistently demonstrates that single fathers often face substantial challenges, such as job-insecurity, low income, and inadequate social benefits, which significantly impact their quality of life and mental well-being (Chum et al., 2022; Collings et al., 2014). For instance, they are significantly more likely to experience stress, depressive symptoms and poorer mental health compared to their married counterparts, largely due to socio-economic disadvantages (Chiu et al., 2017; Dhungel, 2023; Kong & Kim, 2015). The absence of robust institutional support during crises, like the pandemic, further exacerbates their stress-levels (Tsfati et al., 2022). Single fathers, who are able to afford and obtain supportive networks can better manage parenting stress and combat feelings of stigma and isolation (Jones et al., 2022). Social benefits, although less utilised by single fathers compared to single mothers, provide a financial buffer that can alleviate some economic pressures, which can improve their well-being (Chum et al., 2022). Moreover, single fathers with higher-income jobs are likely have better access to flexible work arrangements and quality childcare, which can help balance work-caregiving responsibilities, thus reducing stress (Iztayeva, 2021; Jones et al., 2022). However, this reliance on individual circumstances reinforces systemic inequalities, since not all single fathers can access high-income jobs or supportive networks, highlighting the urgent need for structural changes to better support this vulnerable population.
Resilient Together: The Role of Social Support in Mitigating Mental Health Challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Various papers (Iztayeva, 2021; Prokupek, 2023; Tsfati et al., 2022) show the critical role of social support in buffering single fathers against mental health challenges, particularly during the pandemic. Before, they often relied on extended family for childcare, especially those in low-skill jobs who found formal childcare unaffordable (Iztayeva, 2021). However, the pandemic disrupted these informal support systems and exacerbated pre-existing stressors such as financial insecurity and social isolation, leading to increased psychological strain (Tsfati et al., 2022). Despite these challenges, the availability of support networks played a critical role in mitigating negative impacts. Support from mental health professionals and community networks helped alleviate feelings of loneliness, mitigated their vulnerability and improved their well-being (Tsfati et al., 2022). The single parents who already relied on social support prior to the lockdown, showed stable employment and only moderate changes in external childcare, potentially due to emergency provisions that reduced the need for additional support. This enabled single fathers to educate and spend quality time with their children, while experiencing similar levels of stress (Prokupek, 2023). This increased involvement with their children during lockdowns provided an unexpected source of emotional support and a sense of fulfilment, highlighting the dual role of single fathers as both caregivers and financial providers (Tsfati et al., 2022). Therefore, the presence of robust social support systems significantly cushioned the impact of pandemic-related stressors on single fathers’ mental health and well-being, yet it also highlights the precarious nature of their reliance on such support.
Understanding the well-being of single fathers is essential in addressing the broader implications of family structure on mental health and socio-economic stability. This systematic review explored the nuanced differences in mental health outcomes and socio-economic challenges faced by single fathers in comparison to single mothers and partnered fathers. The contrasting experiences of these demographics reveal the critical influence of gender, household composition, and socio-economic support on mental health. While single fathers often struggle with less flexible workplace support and higher job-insecurity, they benefit from social networks and financial stability, which can offset some mental health stressors. Conversely, single mothers frequently struggle with higher rates of unemployment and depression, exacerbated by socio-economic deprivation and childcare responsibilities. Analysing these dynamics through the lens of status characteristic theory (Berger et al. 1977; Wagner and Berger 1997), which suggests that men typically receive a fatherhood bonus due to their higher social status (Berger et al. 1977), we can discern how societal biases shape these outcomes. Single fathers, despite facing job-insecurity, are often perceived more favourably in professional environments, receiving implicit socio-economic advantages. On the other hand, single mothers endure a motherhood penalty, as caregiving is devalued and deemed “women’s work” (Folbre, 2018), leading to systemic disadvantages such as increased unemployment and severe mental health challenges (Correll et al. 2007; Ridgeway and Correll 2004). Additionally, the role of social support networks emerges as a key buffer against socio-economic stressors, particularly evident during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This analysis emphasises the importance of fostering supportive environments and tailored interventions to enhance the well-being of single parents across different socio-economic landscapes.
The relationship between socio-economic deprivation and poorer mental health has been recognised in the general population (Oakley-Browne et al., 2006), with the emphasis on single parents (Crosier et al., 2007; Hope et al., 1999; Kim and Kim, 2012). This aligns with Avison and Davies (2005) and Collings et al. (2014) findings, that single mothers generally experience higher degrees of psychological distress compared to single fathers, largely due to socio-economic deprivation. Conversely, Wade et al. (2011) found that while single mothers had a higher risk of psychiatric disorders compared to single fathers, SES accounted for a larger proportion of this risk in fathers (37%) than in mothers (14%).
Within the general population, single fathers earn more than single mothers (Grall, 2020; Livingston, 2013), and the latter receive more social support (Grall, 2020; Hertz & Ferguson, 1997). Chum et al., (2022) found that job-insecurity impacted partnered parents and childless individual’s mental health less than lone fathers, while lone mothers were unaffected. They argued that limited resources play a critical role managing the possibility of job loss, which is linked to increased stress. This indicates that job-insecurity is linked to poorer mental health outcomes, as shown previously (Abbafati et al., 2020; Andrea et al., 2009; Burgard et al., 2009; Ferrie et al., 1998; Ferrie et al., 2002; Lassalle et al., 2015; Meltzer et al., 2010; Rugulies et al., 2006; Rugulies et al., 2010; Watson & Osberg, 2018).
Therefore, while single mothers are more exposed to psychological distress, the impact of socio-economic factors on mental health may be more pronounced in single fathers. For instance, increased financial instability and lack of social support, particularly in economic downturns, can exacerbate mental health issues, such as mood, substance disorders and suicidal ideation (Tobias et al., 2009) in single fathers (Artazcoz et al., 2004; Berk et al., 2006; European Commission, 2013). Studies by Klose and Jacobi (2004) and Wade et al. (2011) reported no significant gender differences in the impact of single parenthood on mental disorders, a finding supported by Chiu et al. (2017), who described no disparities in self-rated well-being between single mothers and fathers. However, several research articles argue that insufficient financial and social support among single parents contribute to higher depression rates (Cairney et al., 2003; Crosier et al., 2007; Targosz et al., 2003; Wade et al., 2011) worse self-rated health (Curtis & Phipps, 2004; Rousou et al., 2013) and key predictors of mental illness (Honkalampi et al., 2005). Likewise, studies highlight significant health inequalities that persist after accounting for socio-economic variables (Benzeval, 1998; Fritzell & Burstrom, 2006; Rahkonen et al., 2005; Siahpush, 2004; Wang, 2004) or social support (Rahkonen et al., 2005; Wang, 2004). For instance, substance use disorders are more prevalent among men (Kessler et al., 2005), they have four times less healthcare appointments per year than women (Hippisley-Cox & Vinogradova, 2009) due to various socio-economic and day-to-day challenges, which may postpone diagnoses of significant health problems (Banks & Baker, 2013).
In comparison to partnered parents, lone fathers lack the resources and opportunities to mitigate their economic vulnerabilities or develop their career further (Abu et al., 2018; Backhaus et al., 2002; Collins et al., 2001). Similarly, Crosier et al., (2007) and Kim et al. (2001) reported that single fathers have endured more adverse socio-economic conditions and well-being (Cooper et al, 2008; Kim & Kim, 2012; Meadows, 2009; Wade et al., 2011; Westin & Westerling, 2006) in comparison to other demographics. Furthermore, they present worse quality of life, depression, stress (Kong and Kim, 2015), and more prevalent mental disorders (Cooper et al., 2008).
Child custody, raising more than two children, (especially if they are under 10 years old) linked to depressive symptoms of single parents (Song, 2007; Yoon et al., 2009). DeKlyen et al. (2006) reported that fathers experience anxiety and depression at rates similar to or higher than their female counterparts, while studies (Collings et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2015; Wade et al., 2011) show higher rates of depression and suicidal ideation in single mothers, followed by single fathers and partnered fathers. In contrast, men are at a higher risk of suicide and often have under-diagnosed or hidden depression (Brownhill et al., 2005; Kilmartin, 2005), possibly due to traditional masculinity roles (Courtenay, 2000, Galdas, 2013; Veskrna, 2010) or because single fathers frequently under-report mental disorders or are unaware of them, therefore they are undiagnosed and remain untreated (Addis & Mahalik, 2003; Angst et al., 2016; Brown et al., 2019; Emslie et al., 2006).
Regarding self-rated health, there are no substantial differences shown amongst single fathers and mothers, implying that partner status similarly affects health across genders (Rattay et al., 2017). Similarly, Wade et al. (2011) also reported comparable rates of mood, anxiety, substance-use disorders and psychological distress (Kamp Dush, 2013) among lone parents, which had a higher prevalence than their partnered counterparts. Consistent with a limited body of research on solo parents (Carone et al., 2020; Golombok et al., 2016; 2021), both groups exhibited high psychological adjustment levels, aligning with general population standards for health measures. These findings above imply that single father’s mental health is better than single mothers, but worse than their partnered counterpart (Benzeval, 1998).
Our findings show the importance of social support, especially for men in relation to their mental health. It is essential for adaptability (Dunn et al., 2001; Jackson and Kiehl, 2017; Manning et al., 2011; Martin-West, 2019; Prokupek, 2023; Wierda-Boer et al., 2008), mitigating stress, risk (Cairney et al., 2003, Oppermann et al., 2021), loneliness and isolation (De Jong Gierveld et al., 2016; Hawkley and Cacioppo, 2010). It also linked to good physical and mental health (Fagan and Lee, 2011; Luo et al., 2012) and economic welfare (Henly et al., 2005). As one of the themes indicates, social support plays a key role as a buffer against challenges and stressors (Degarmo et al., 2008), for instance mitigating parenting stress (Parkes et al., 2015).
However, men usually lack a large support network, as they often rely on their intimate partner (Carr, 2004; Carr and Pudrovska, 2012; Crowley, 2018), which limits the quality and quantity of support single fathers have access to (Carr and Pudrovska 2012; Haxton and Harknett 2009). According to Jones et al., (2022), while this support is generally positive and supportive, single fathers experience various stressors, such as stigma and prejudice (Bock, 2000; Mayer, 1995, 2013). Regarding social support, especially from other single parents, fathers emphasised its significance in reducing their vulnerability and loneliness, and improving their well-being (Tsfati et al., 2022). This corroborates with previous research, linking informal support to parents’ health during the Covid-19 lockdown (Brown et al., 2020; Craig & Churchill, 2021). However, practitioners should be mindful that even without a global epidemic, most parents exposed to various stressors due to their parenting role (Griffith, 2020), which can lead to parental burnout (Griffith, 2020; Mikolajczak et al., 2019).
The evidence underscores the complex relationship between SES, gender, and mental health among single parents. While single mothers generally experience higher levels of psychological distress, socio-economic factors seem to have a more pronounced effect on the mental health of single fathers, exacerbating their vulnerability to depression, substance disorders, and suicidal ideation. The disparity in earnings and social support between single mothers and fathers highlights the critical role of financial stability and social networks in mitigating mental health risks. Despite the gender differences in mental health outcomes, single parents face significant challenges that stem from their unique SES and limited support systems. This calls for targeted interventions and policy measures that address the specific needs of single parents, enhance social support networks, and alleviate economic pressures. Ensuring access to mental health services and promoting gender-sensitive support mechanisms can help improve the overall well-being of single parents and their children, ultimately fostering a more equitable and supportive societal framework.
This chapter synthesises this systematic review’s key points on the mental health and socio-economic challenges faced by single fathers worldwide, compared to single mothers and partnered fathers. Research indicates that single mothers experience poorer mental health, higher unemployment, and greater socio-economic deprivation than single fathers, who generally enjoy higher financial stability. However, single fathers face significant mental health challenges due to job-insecurity and limited workplace support, with higher rates of psychological distress and poorer health behaviours than partnered fathers. SES heavily influences these outcomes, with single mothers benefiting more from informal social support networks, while single fathers rely on financial stability and social networks to mitigate stress.
The COVID-19 pandemic further exposed these vulnerabilities, with single fathers facing heightened financial insecurity and social isolation. However, those with robust social support networks, both formal and informal, were better able to manage stress and maintain well-being. The presence of supportive communities and institutional backing emerged as crucial for buffering against socio-economic and pandemic-related stressors. Despite these supports, single fathers often contend with societal stigma and limited access to comprehensive social networks, exacerbating their mental health struggles.
The analysis highlights the importance of tailored interventions and supportive environments for single parents. Gender-sensitive policies and access to mental health services are essential to address the unique challenges faced by single fathers and mothers. Ensuring financial stability and enhancing social support systems can significantly improve their overall well-being and that of their children. This calls for targeted policy measures that recognize the distinct needs of single parents, fostering a more equitable and supportive societal framework. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for social work practice in Scotland. Practitioners must consider the varied socio-economic and mental health challenges single parents face and provide holistic support that addresses both immediate and long-term needs. By promoting resilience through strong support networks and flexible employment policies, social workers can help mitigate the adverse effects of socio-economic stressors on single parents. This comprehensive approach can ultimately enhance the well-being of single fathers and mothers, contributing to healthier family dynamics and more stable communities. Future research should focus on identifying specific areas where intervention can be most effective, ensuring that support mechanisms are responsive to the evolving needs of single parents in different socio-economic contexts.
In a world that often celebrates the loudest voices, reflective silence offers a path of introspection, patience, and intentional communication. Drawing from the Stoic wisdom of Epictetus, who advised, “Be silent for the most part, or, if you speak, say only what is necessary and in a few words,” this principle encourages us to take a step back, observe, and consider the impact of our words before speaking.
What Is Reflective Silence?
Reflective silence is not simply the absence of speech; it is a deliberate and thoughtful pause that allows us to process our thoughts and emotions before expressing them. It creates space for understanding and insight, both inwardly and in our interactions with others. This practice asks us to slow down and resist the urge to fill every moment with noise, instead making room for more meaningful communication.
In a culture that often prizes quick responses, reflective silence may feel counterintuitive. But when embraced, it can become a powerful tool for personal growth and deeper connections with others.
The Benefits of Reflective Silence
Enhanced Listening and Understanding Reflective silence encourages active listening, allowing us to focus on what others are saying rather than thinking about how we will respond. This deepened attentiveness can improve our relationships by fostering empathy and understanding. When we take the time to fully absorb another person’s words, we can respond in ways that are more thoughtful and aligned with their needs, rather than our impulse to speak.
Improved Self-Awareness By pausing in moments of silence, we create space for introspection. This self-reflection allows us to better understand our own thoughts, feelings, and motivations. As we cultivate a habit of checking in with ourselves, we can gain greater clarity about what drives our reactions, decisions, and the words we choose. This leads to more deliberate actions and a stronger alignment between our internal values and external behavior.
Restraint in Speech Epictetus teaches us that not every thought needs to be voiced. Reflective silence empowers us to exercise restraint and speak only when we have something meaningful or necessary to add. When we prioritize quality over quantity in our conversations, our words carry more weight and intention. This restraint not only prevents misunderstandings and unnecessary conflict but also ensures that when we do speak, it is with clarity and purpose.
Emotional Regulation Moments of silence provide an opportunity to manage our emotional responses. Rather than reacting impulsively, silence allows us to step back, observe our emotions, and respond in a more controlled and thoughtful manner. This practice is especially valuable in situations of conflict or stress, where quick reactions can often escalate tension. By remaining silent, we give ourselves the chance to choose a more measured and constructive response.
Silence as a Form of Communication
Though silence is often seen as passive, it is, in fact, a powerful form of communication. In moments of silence, we can convey respect, patience, and attentiveness. When we choose not to speak, we allow others the space to express themselves fully without interruption, demonstrating that their words and experiences are valued.
Silence can also serve as a reminder that not every situation requires verbal resolution. Sometimes, the best support we can offer is our quiet presence, allowing others to process their emotions or thoughts in their own time. This form of nonverbal communication fosters trust and emotional safety, strengthening our connections with others.
Practical Ways to Incorporate Reflective Silence
Pause Before Speaking Before responding in a conversation, take a brief moment of silence to reflect on what has been said and consider your response. This simple pause can make your communication more thoughtful and intentional.
Practice Mindful Listening Focus fully on the person speaking without planning your reply while they talk. Give yourself permission to listen without the pressure of immediate response, allowing you to absorb their message more fully.
Engage in Silent Reflection Set aside time each day for silence, free from distractions. Use this quiet time to reflect on your thoughts, feelings, and actions, and to connect with your inner wisdom. This practice can help you develop greater self-awareness and emotional clarity.
Respond with Purpose When speaking, aim for brevity and clarity. Reflect on whether your words add value to the conversation. If not, consider whether silence might be a more powerful response.
Embracing the Virtue of Silence
The virtue of reflective silence is one of discipline, humility, and presence. In an age of constant noise and distraction, the ability to remain silent and reflect can bring clarity, emotional balance, and deeper connections. As Epictetus suggests, let us strive to speak only when necessary, ensuring our words are thoughtful, intentional, and aligned with our values.
By embracing silence as a form of communication and a tool for reflection, we can enhance our discernment, strengthen our relationships, and cultivate a more serene and thoughtful presence in the world.
Beyond Barriers 