Power is a fundamental and contested concept within social work, playing a central role in both theoretical discussions and practical applications. While social work has long embraced the ideals of empowerment and anti-oppressive practice, the concept of power itself remains ambiguous and difficult to define. This article explores the complexities of power in social work and introduces the Power-informed Practice (PiP) framework as a tool for social workers to navigate power dynamics effectively.

The existing literature on power within social work tends to rely on dichotomous understandings, categorizing power as either positive or negative, enabling or limiting. Such perspectives, while valuable, fail to capture the full complexity of power as a phenomenon that operates synchronously—both enabling and limiting at the same time. This understanding is particularly crucial in contemporary social work, where professionals must balance their authority with their commitment to social justice and empowerment.

Theoretical Foundations of Power in Social Work

Power has been conceptualized in numerous ways, drawing from sociological and philosophical traditions. Notably, Lukes’ three-dimensional model of power highlights how power is exercised through decision-making, agenda-setting, and ideological control. Meanwhile, Foucault emphasizes the relational and fluid nature of power, seeing it as embedded within social structures rather than being possessed by individuals or institutions. These perspectives inform social work’s approach to power, underscoring the necessity of recognizing its manifestations at multiple levels—individual, institutional, and structural.

Social work operates within various domains, influencing change at micro, mezzo, and macro levels. Social workers derive power from their professional authority, legislative frameworks, and personal credibility. However, this power must be exercised with a critical awareness of how it can both enable and oppress service users. The challenge lies in ensuring that social work interventions promote empowerment while avoiding paternalism or coercion.

Social Work and Empowerment

Empowerment is a cornerstone of social work practice, rooted in the profession’s commitment to social justice and anti-oppressive principles. It involves enabling individuals, families, and communities to gain control over their own lives by providing them with the necessary resources, skills, and opportunities. The empowerment process is multi-dimensional, encompassing personal, interpersonal, and structural levels. Personal empowerment focuses on building self-efficacy and confidence, helping individuals recognize their strengths and abilities. Interpersonal empowerment emphasizes relationships and support systems that foster agency and participation. Structural empowerment, meanwhile, seeks to challenge and transform oppressive social conditions through policy advocacy and systemic change. Social workers play a critical role in facilitating empowerment by adopting strengths-based approaches, advocating for marginalized groups, and fostering inclusive practices. However, empowerment is not a straightforward process—it requires a careful balance of power dynamics, ensuring that interventions do not inadvertently reinforce dependency or exacerbate existing inequalities. Effective empowerment necessitates an ongoing dialogue between service users and practitioners, emphasizing collaborative decision-making and shared authority.

The Power-informed Practice (PiP) Framework

To address the limitations of existing models, the PiP framework was developed as a structured approach to analyzing power in social work. This framework categorizes power into three levels:

1. Individual/Personal (I) – The power individuals exercise over themselves and others, including self-determination and resistance.
2. Professional/Institutional (P) – Power derived from professional roles and institutional authority, including decision-making within agencies and organizations.
3. Structural/Societal (S) – Power embedded in social structures, policies, and cultural norms that shape opportunities and constraints.

Each of these levels of power can be exercised in three ways:

• Limiting Power – Constrains autonomy, imposes restrictions, or reinforces oppression.
• Productive Power – Enables agency, provides resources, and facilitates empowerment.
• Simultaneously Limiting/Productive Power – Exercises of power that have both enabling and constraining effects, depending on context.

Application of the PiP Framework: Child Abuse Case Study

Consider a scenario where a young person repeatedly goes missing from home due to physical abuse by their parents. Analyzing this case through the PiP framework reveals the various power dynamics at play:

• Individual/Personal Level: The young person exercises individual power by running away, attempting to protect themselves from harm. However, their options remain constrained due to their dependence on adults.
• Professional/Institutional Level: Police and social workers hold professional power in responding to the situation. If the authorities believe the child and intervene, they exercise productive power. If they dismiss the child’s claims, they exert limiting power, reinforcing the child’s vulnerability.
• Structural/Societal Level: Laws and social attitudes shape the response to child abuse. In some contexts, physical discipline may be socially accepted, limiting structural power to protect the child. Conversely, robust child protection laws exemplify structural productive power.

Social workers play a crucial role in mitigating power imbalances in such cases. By actively listening to the child, providing access to safe alternatives like kinship care, and challenging oppressive structures, they can leverage professional and structural power to create more equitable outcomes.

Implications for Social Work Practice and Research

The PiP framework offers a nuanced lens for social workers to analyze power dynamics in their practice. It encourages practitioners to recognize the complexity of power relations and to critically reflect on their roles in shaping these dynamics. Future research should explore the application of this framework across diverse social work settings, including domestic violence, homelessness, and elder care.

While the PiP framework advances power-informed social work practice, it is essential to acknowledge its limitations. The framework is primarily based on Western conceptualizations of power and may require adaptation to different cultural contexts. Additionally, social workers must remain aware of the challenges in categorizing power dynamics and ensure that their analyses are grounded in the lived experiences of service users.

Conclusion

Power is an inescapable aspect of social work practice, influencing every interaction and intervention. The PiP framework provides a structured approach to understanding and applying power in a way that promotes empowerment while acknowledging its complexities. By integrating this framework into practice, social workers can work more effectively towards social justice, ensuring that their interventions are both ethical and transformative.

Source