Social work as a discipline is rooted in the holistic understanding of the human experience. However, its engagement with the spiritual aspects of clients’ lives has often been limited, despite the potential benefits of spiritual growth for well-being. Transpersonal theory offers a perspective that embraces the spiritual dimension, emphasizing growth beyond ego-bound identity to a higher state of consciousness. This article explores the compatibility of transpersonal theory with social work, examining its conceptual underpinnings, practical applications, and its potential to advance the field.
Understanding Transpersonal Theory At its core, transpersonal theory asserts the existence of a consciousness beyond the ego, accessible through psychospiritual development. This perspective encourages individuals to harness their inherent capacity for healing and growth by transcending limiting beliefs and fostering an interconnected awareness of the self and the cosmos. The transpersonal journey, according to the theory, entails dis-identification from the ego, integration of diverse perspectives, and the cultivation of traits such as compassion, wisdom, and gratitude.
Motivation within transpersonal theory operates at individual, group, and cosmic levels. For example, individuals may seek meaning through “spiritual strivings,” while group dynamics emphasize collective purpose and sacred connections. On a broader scale, the theory underscores humanity’s drive to protect what is sacred and contribute to a greater whole.
Application in Social Work Transpersonal theory aligns with social work’s core values, such as the dignity and worth of individuals, the importance of relationships, and the pursuit of social justice. It emphasizes cultural humility, fostering nonjudgmental acceptance and a commitment to understanding clients’ unique spiritual experiences. Moreover, transpersonal approaches can help clients confront internalized oppression, promoting self-awareness and compassion that extend to social justice efforts.
In practice, transpersonal therapy employs diverse techniques such as Jungian expressive arts, existential therapy, hypnotherapy, and systemic family therapy. These methods encourage self-reflection, healing, and spiritual integration. Social workers trained in transpersonal approaches are better equipped to address clients’ spiritual needs, creating a more holistic therapeutic environment.
Research and Evidence Despite skepticism about the scientific validity of transpersonal practices, research has begun to illuminate their benefits. For example, Stanislav Grof’s work with psychedelic substances revealed profound transpersonal experiences involving ego transcendence and enhanced empathy. Other studies have linked spirituality to improved mental health, though further exploration is needed to address safety concerns and deepen understanding.
Methodologies used in transpersonal research, such as phenomenological approaches, align with social work’s emphasis on qualitative and mixed methods. These tools not only validate the role of spirituality in therapy but also challenge the limits of conventional scientific paradigms.
Comparing Perspectives The eco–systems perspective in social work shares similarities with transpersonal theory, as both recognize the interconnectedness of individuals and their environments. However, transpersonal theory uniquely focuses on the spiritual domain, offering a pathway for those seeking deeper existential understanding. While not universally applicable due to societal resistance to spirituality, its integration into social work could broaden the profession’s scope and efficacy.
Advancing the Profession Transpersonal theory’s emphasis on spirituality complements social work’s mission to address diverse aspects of human experience. By incorporating transpersonal approaches, social workers can enhance their ability to foster clients’ holistic well-being. However, the field must balance this integration with its commitment to evidence-based practice, expanding research methodologies to capture the nuances of spiritual growth.
Conclusion Transpersonal theory enriches social work by addressing the often-overlooked spiritual dimension of human experience. Its alignment with social work values and its potential to transform practice make it a valuable addition to the profession. As the field evolves, embracing transpersonal approaches could foster a more comprehensive and compassionate understanding of the human condition.
Motivational Interviewing (MI) has become a transformative approach in the realm of social work, offering a compassionate and client-centered methodology to facilitate behavior change. Initially developed by William R. Miller in the 1980s and later refined in collaboration with Stephen Rollnick, MI emerged as a counterpoint to traditional directive and confrontational techniques often employed in efforts to modify client behavior. At its core, MI focuses on fostering intrinsic motivation through collaboration, empathy, and the resolution of ambivalence, making it a natural fit for the values and ethics that underpin social work practice.
In the social work profession, behavior change interventions have historically centered on skill-building and the removal of barriers. While these approaches have merit, the evolving complexity of human behavior necessitates a deeper understanding of motivational constructs. Models such as the transtheoretical model, the information-motivation-behavioral skills model, and the health belief model emphasize that behavior change is rarely a straightforward process. Instead, it often requires a nuanced appreciation of a client’s readiness and willingness to engage in change. Motivational Interviewing addresses this need by tailoring interventions to the individual, recognizing that effective change emerges not from external pressure but from an internal desire to align actions with personal values and goals.
The essence of MI lies in its spirit, which guides the practitioner’s style and approach. The MI spirit is characterized by empathy, partnership, and a belief in the client’s autonomy. It is not merely a set of techniques but a way of being with clients, emphasizing their intrinsic ability to make decisions about their own lives. Unlike more directive or authoritarian models, MI rejects persuasion or coercion in favor of a collaborative relationship where the client’s perspective is central. This approach reflects the values of social work, including respect for human dignity, self-determination, and the inherent worth of each individual. Through empathic listening and reflective dialogue, MI practitioners create a safe, non-judgmental space that allows clients to explore their ambivalence and gain clarity about their desires and goals.
MI’s practical applications in social work are vast and varied, encompassing issues such as addiction, domestic violence, mental health, and child welfare. Its client-centered approach has proven particularly effective in addiction treatment, where individuals often face significant internal conflicts about change. In this context, MI facilitates the exploration of both the benefits and risks of continued substance use, empowering clients to make informed decisions about their recovery. Similarly, MI has shown promise in addressing health-related behaviors, including smoking cessation, dietary changes, and HIV prevention, where its emphasis on intrinsic motivation complements public health objectives. The versatility of MI also extends to the field of domestic violence, as illustrated in Stephanie Wahab’s case study of a survivor navigating the complex dynamics of her relationship. By avoiding judgment and instead fostering a supportive dialogue, the practitioner helped the client weigh the advantages and disadvantages of her choices, ultimately empowering her to prioritize her safety and well-being.
The principles underpinning MI—expressing empathy, developing discrepancy, rolling with resistance, and supporting self-efficacy—serve as the foundation for its effectiveness. These principles are operationalized through techniques such as open-ended questioning, reflective listening, and the strategic exploration of ambivalence. Rather than dictating solutions or imposing change, MI practitioners act as facilitators, guiding clients toward their own insights and resolutions. This process not only enhances the client’s motivation but also strengthens their confidence in their ability to enact and sustain change. The use of reflective listening, in particular, underscores the importance of understanding and validating the client’s perspective, which is crucial for building trust and rapport.
The application of MI in domestic violence settings highlights its adaptability to complex and sensitive issues. In Wahab’s case study, the practitioner engaged with Delores, a survivor of severe physical abuse, using MI techniques to navigate her ambivalence about leaving her abusive partner. Rather than urging Delores to make a specific decision, the practitioner supported her exploration of her feelings and priorities, reflecting her concerns without judgment. This non-directive approach allowed Delores to consider her options at her own pace, fostering a sense of agency and self-determination. By focusing on Delores’s autonomy and providing a safe space for reflection, the practitioner demonstrated the power of MI to address deeply personal and multifaceted challenges in a respectful and empowering manner.
Despite its many strengths, the integration of MI into social work practice is not without challenges. Effective implementation requires a commitment to training and supervision, as well as a willingness to embrace the philosophical underpinnings of the MI spirit. For agencies operating under tight budgets, providing adequate resources for MI training can be a significant hurdle. Additionally, practitioners accustomed to directive methods may find it difficult to adopt MI’s client-centered approach, which emphasizes listening over problem-solving and reflection over advice. These challenges underscore the importance of fostering a culture of learning and support within organizations to ensure the successful adoption of MI principles.
The potential benefits of MI for social work are immense. Its alignment with core social work values, such as respect for diversity and empowerment, makes it a valuable tool for practitioners across a range of settings. Moreover, MI’s brief intervention model offers a cost-effective solution for resource-limited agencies, demonstrating comparable impact to more extensive treatment programs in certain contexts. As social work continues to evolve in response to the complexities of human behavior, the integration of MI provides an opportunity to enhance client outcomes while staying true to the profession’s ethical commitments.
In conclusion, Motivational Interviewing represents a profound shift in the approach to behavior change, emphasizing collaboration, empathy, and the client’s intrinsic capacity for growth. Its compatibility with social work principles and its demonstrated effectiveness across diverse contexts make it a compelling addition to the social work toolkit. By adopting MI, social workers can deepen their practice, empowering clients to navigate their own paths toward change and fostering resilience and self-determination in the process.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, introduced by Abraham Maslow in 1943, is a cornerstone theory in psychology, presenting a tiered framework of human motivation. The model is often visualized as a pyramid, with basic physiological necessities forming the foundation and self-actualization at the pinnacle. This theory emphasizes that individuals must satisfy lower-level needs before addressing higher aspirations. While it has undergone refinement over the decades, its core idea—that human motivation progresses from fundamental survival needs to complex psychological and self-fulfillment goals—remains a vital tool in understanding behavior.
The hierarchy begins with physiological needs, which include essentials like food, water, air, sleep, and shelter. These are the most pressing requirements for survival; without them, an individual cannot focus on other concerns. Once these are met, attention shifts to safety needs, which encompass both physical and emotional security. Job stability, health, law, and order provide the predictability and control humans crave to feel secure. Beyond safety, love and belongingness needs emerge. At this stage, individuals seek meaningful relationships, social connections, and a sense of community. These interpersonal bonds fulfill the human desire for acceptance and intimacy.
The next level is esteem needs, where individuals seek recognition and a sense of accomplishment. Maslow divided this category into two components: self-esteem, which involves confidence and independence, and respect from others, which includes status and prestige. Achieving these needs builds a person’s self-worth and value. Finally, at the peak of the pyramid lies self-actualization, the realization of one’s full potential. This stage involves personal growth, creativity, and the pursuit of meaningful goals. Maslow described this as the desire to become everything one is capable of becoming, whether through art, innovation, or personal endeavors.
Maslow later expanded his original five-tier model to include additional needs. Cognitive needs, such as curiosity and the pursuit of knowledge, and aesthetic needs, which involve the appreciation of beauty and balance, became part of the hierarchy. At the highest level, Maslow introduced transcendence needs, which focus on altruism, spirituality, and connecting with a greater purpose. These extensions highlight the complexity of human motivation, as individuals seek meaning beyond themselves and contribute to the broader world.
The hierarchy has wide-ranging applications. In the workplace, for instance, addressing employees’ needs at each level fosters motivation and productivity. Ensuring fair wages and benefits satisfies physiological needs, while stable working conditions and transparent policies fulfill safety needs. Building team camaraderie and an inclusive culture addresses social needs, and recognition programs boost esteem. Encouraging creativity, offering growth opportunities, and aligning roles with individual strengths help employees reach self-actualization. Similarly, in education, Maslow’s framework supports a holistic approach to teaching. Students must feel physically safe and emotionally supported to thrive academically. Teachers can nurture belonging through collaborative activities, bolster esteem by recognizing achievements, and inspire self-actualization by encouraging creative exploration and goal-setting.
In healthcare, Maslow’s hierarchy provides a framework for addressing patients’ diverse needs. Physiological concerns like pain management and nutrition take precedence, but emotional security, family involvement, and respect for individual values are equally important. Nurses and caregivers can empower patients by aligning care with their personal goals, helping them cope with health challenges, and fostering a sense of purpose. This approach enhances healing, resilience, and overall well-being.
While Maslow’s theory has enduring value, it is not without critique. The methodology behind the hierarchy relied heavily on subjective analysis of individuals Maslow deemed self-actualized, such as Albert Einstein and Eleanor Roosevelt, which introduces bias. Critics also argue that the model’s linear structure may not universally apply. Studies like Tay and Diener’s (2011) demonstrate that while human needs are consistent across cultures, their prioritization varies, and individuals often experience multiple needs simultaneously. Nonetheless, Maslow’s work offers profound insights into human motivation, providing a flexible framework that remains relevant in diverse fields such as psychology, education, and organizational management.
Strengths-based approaches (SBAs) in social work represent a significant shift from traditional models that often focus on deficits and needs. Instead, SBAs prioritize the inherent strengths, assets, and capacities of individuals, families, and communities. This philosophical and practical approach encourages empowerment, resilience, and co-production, aiming to improve well-being and foster independence. Emerging prominently after the implementation of the Care Act 2014 in England, SBAs have become a central framework for adult social care, emphasizing personal well-being and outcomes-focused practices. This article explores the theoretical foundations, implementation strategies, challenges, and impacts of SBAs, drawing on findings from a comprehensive study conducted between 2020 and 2021.
The theoretical underpinning of SBAs lies in a salutogenic perspective, which prioritizes health and capacity over pathology and deficiency. Saleebey’s seminal work in 2009 emphasized focusing on the strengths and resources available to individuals rather than their problems. This approach aligns with the values of self-determination and human resilience, urging practitioners to view individuals as active agents capable of participating in their own care. Central to this perspective is the belief that by identifying and leveraging existing strengths—whether within individuals, their communities, or their broader networks—greater autonomy, independence, and long-term well-being can be achieved.
In practice, SBAs have been embraced by many local authorities in England as part of their adult social care strategies. The study referenced here used a two-stage design to understand how SBAs are being implemented and what outcomes they generate. The first stage involved an online survey completed by 32 social care practitioners, including social workers, managers, and commissioners. The second stage comprised in-depth interviews with ten participants from the survey cohort, allowing for nuanced insights into the practical application of SBAs.
Implementation of SBAs varied widely across different settings, from mental health services to safeguarding teams and community-led support initiatives. Many practitioners employed specific models, such as the “Three Conversations” approach, which focuses on listening, intensive work, and building a better life for service users. However, most respondents reported adapting these models to fit their local context, creating hybrid frameworks tailored to organizational needs and individual circumstances. For some, SBAs were not confined to a specific method or toolkit but represented an overarching ethos influencing all aspects of practice, from policy formulation to frontline interactions.
Training played a vital role in the adoption of SBAs, equipping practitioners with the skills and knowledge required to integrate these principles into their work. While many participants expressed satisfaction with the training they received, others noted that it often reiterated existing practices rather than introducing genuinely innovative concepts. This reflects a broader challenge in conceptualizing SBAs, as many practitioners felt they were already applying similar principles under other frameworks, such as person-centered or personalized care. The lack of a clear, distinctive definition of SBAs sometimes led to confusion about their unique contributions to social work.
The impact of SBAs on service users has been overwhelmingly positive, fostering a sense of control, engagement, and hope. By emphasizing strengths rather than deficiencies, SBAs help individuals feel valued and empowered, encouraging active participation in managing their own care. For many, this approach has led to improved well-being, greater trust in social care services, and enhanced independence. Community-level benefits have also been observed, with stronger relationships, better support for carers, and increased utilization of local resources contributing to a more holistic care environment.
Social care practitioners themselves reported significant benefits from adopting SBAs. Many felt a renewed sense of purpose and professional identity, as the approach allowed them to move beyond procedural tasks and focus on meaningful, person-centered interactions. This shift not only improved their job satisfaction but also fostered creativity and autonomy, enabling them to explore innovative solutions to complex problems. However, these positive outcomes were not universal. Some practitioners experienced increased anxiety due to the heightened responsibility and autonomy required by SBAs, particularly when operating in resource-constrained environments. The lack of sufficient managerial support or reassurance compounded these challenges, underscoring the need for robust organizational structures to support SBA implementation.
Organizational processes have also been significantly influenced by SBAs, with many local authorities streamlining bureaucratic systems to align with the ethos of the approach. Simplified assessment forms, reduced paperwork, and more efficient triaging systems have not only saved time but also improved the quality of interactions between practitioners and service users. For example, shifting the focus from procedural compliance to meaningful conversations has enhanced the immediacy and relevance of care provided at the first point of contact. Nevertheless, these systemic changes often required significant restructuring and resource investment, posing challenges for organizations operating under financial constraints.
Despite the many benefits of SBAs, their implementation is not without challenges. Resource limitations, both in terms of funding and workforce capacity, emerged as a critical barrier. Many practitioners found it difficult to consistently apply SBA principles in the face of high workloads and limited time for in-depth assessments. Additionally, existing financial and commissioning systems often conflicted with the ethos of SBAs, requiring practitioners to adapt or compromise their approaches to meet organizational requirements. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated these issues, highlighting the fragility of community resources and the increasing demands on social care services.
A key area of concern is the potential for SBAs to inadvertently place undue responsibility on individuals, particularly in cases where systemic or structural barriers limit their capacity to act on their strengths. For instance, emphasizing personal resilience without addressing broader social inequalities risks alienating or further marginalizing vulnerable individuals. Practitioners also noted that not all service users were receptive to the SBA ethos, with some preferring more traditional, directive forms of support. These challenges highlight the need for a nuanced application of SBAs, balancing individual empowerment with systemic support and structural change.
Looking ahead, the future of SBAs in social work depends on addressing these challenges and building a stronger evidence base for their effectiveness. While qualitative data from practitioners underscores the transformative potential of SBAs, robust quantitative evaluations are needed to capture their full impact. Engaging directly with service users and their carers will also be crucial in understanding how these approaches intersect with lived experiences and contribute to long-term well-being. Policymakers must ensure that sufficient resources and systemic support are available to sustain the adoption of SBAs, recognizing their potential to reshape social work practice and improve outcomes for all stakeholders.
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.
Case Study: Jason’s parents were contacted by the school social worker to discuss concerns about his involvement in a fight with a peer and his declining academic performance. At home, they are worried about his strained relationships with his siblings, frequent anger outbursts, and defiance, describing him as having “a bad attitude, always talking back, and never following instructions.” The family has a history of substance abuse and mental health issues, including anxiety and depression, which further raises their concerns after recently discovering marijuana in Jason’s room.
Jason, age 14, responds, “My parents don’t know what they’re talking about. My younger brother and sister just get me in trouble because I don’t let them touch my stuff. My parents don’t care—they don’t listen to me; they just want me to do what they say. And I don’t think it’s a big deal that I smoke weed—it helps me feel better and keeps me from being so angry all the time.”
What comes to mind when you hear Person-In-Environment?
This approach emphasises that individuals are strongly influenced by their environment. It underscores the importance of understanding a person and their behavior in relation to the context in which they live. A person’s environment, along with their experiences, shapes how they see the world, how they think, and why they react in certain ways. In Social Work, gathering information from service users is a core aspect of our practice, and knowing what to look for and how to organise it is like assembling pieces of a puzzle to form a clearer picture of their situation. This lesson will introduce key approaches, perspectives, and theories that form the foundation and lens through which social workers view their work.
Micro, Mezzo, and Macro
We’ll begin by exploring the Micro, Mezzo, and Macro Approach, which focuses on different levels within a person’s system and helps guide the identification of needed supports.
The Micro level addresses individual needs and involves direct, one-on-one interactions with service users—this is the most common type of social work. At this level, we examine factors such as biological and psychological needs, social relationships (peers), family dynamics, interpersonal supports, and spiritual beliefs.
Jason’s micro level:Biologically, no physical health issues have been reported, though concerns exist regarding how marijuana use may impact his health. As an adolescent, Jason is undergoing hormonal and physical changes typical for his age. His family’s history of substance abuse and mental health challenges suggests potential genetic factors that may need further exploration. Psychologically, Jason may be experiencing anxiety or depressive symptoms, particularly since he mentions using marijuana as a coping mechanism. Behaviorally, he exhibits anger and conflicts with his siblings, along with strained family relationships, which highlights the importance of examining his social connections and support systems. While no spiritual beliefs were mentioned in the case study, this is an area that would need to be explored in further discussions with Jason.
The Mezzo level focuses on an individual’s connections and interactions with small groups, including family, schools, churches, neighborhoods, community organizations, and peers or co-workers. These group dynamics play a significant role in shaping a person’s social environment and can offer critical support or pose challenges.
Jason’s mezzo level: At this level, we would explore how his relationships and interactions with various groups influence him, including his family, peers, school staff and faculty, any possible spiritual affiliations or church connections, as well as any community groups or organizations he identifies with. Understanding these group dynamics will help assess the broader context of his support systems and social influences.
The Macro level addresses connections to large systems and systemic issues, such as laws, legislation, policies, healthcare systems, and international organizations. It also examines broader influences like ethical frameworks, the historical impact of group experiences, and how discrimination and prejudice affect marginalized populations. This level focuses on the structural factors that shape a person’s experiences and access to resources.
Jason’s macro level: At this level, it is important to examine how broader systemic factors influence his situation. This includes education and school policies, mental health and healthcare systems, drug laws and policies, as well as cultural and historical impacts of group experiences. Additionally, the potential effects of discrimination and prejudice on Jason’s experiences should be explored to understand how these larger structures may be affecting his life.
It is essential to examine the interconnectedness and interactions among the information presented at each level, as this can significantly impact a person’s functioning and development within their environment. Understanding how the micro, mezzo, and macro levels influence one another provides a comprehensive view of the individual’s circumstances and can inform more effective interventions and support strategies.
Bio-Psycho-Social-Spiritual
The Bio-Psycho-Social-Spiritual Approach evaluates functioning across biological, psychological, social, and spiritual dimensions, examining how these areas are interconnected to better understand human behavior. While this approach overlaps with the Micro level, it takes a more in-depth look at how the individual functions within each dimension and how these areas influence one another.
The Biological component focuses on factors such as overall health, physical abilities, weight, diet, lifestyle, medication or substance use, gender, and genetic predispositions or vulnerabilities.
Jason’s biological aspects:While no concerns with his overall physical health have been reported, it’s important to consider the developmental changes associated with adolescence. There are concerns about his substance use and its potential impacts. He identifies as male, and there may be genetic predispositions or vulnerabilities, such as a family history of substance abuse, anxiety, depression, or other relevant mental health issues, that warrant further exploration.
The Psychological component involves factors related to mental health, self-esteem, attitudes and beliefs, temperament, coping skills, emotions, learning, memory, perceptions, and personality. These aspects help shape how an individual thinks, feels, and responds to their environment.
Jason’s psychological aspects: He exhibits anger issues, with concerns surrounding his substance use and its effects. There may be underlying self-esteem issues, poor coping skills, and difficulties with emotional regulation. His cognitive development, personality traits, and temperament need to be assessed, as well as how he perceives and interprets his environment. These factors may offer insight into his behavior and mental health.
The Social component encompasses factors such as peer and family relationships, social supports, cultural traditions, education, employment or job security, socioeconomic status, and the influence of societal messages. These elements shape an individual’s interactions and experiences within their social environment.
Jason’s social aspects:He has strained family relationships and may face challenges in his school relationships and educational supports. It’s important to explore the potential impacts of his socioeconomic background and cultural traditions. Additionally, identifying and examining his peer relationships and social supports will provide a more complete picture of his social environment.
The Spiritual component addresses factors related to an individual’s spiritual or religious beliefs, including any connection or sense of support they feel from a higher being or higher power. This dimension explores how these beliefs influence their sense of purpose, values, and overall well-being.
Jason’s spiritual aspects: No specific spiritual aspects were mentioned, but it’s important to explore what this means to Jason. Does he identify with a church, religion, or a higher power or being? What significance does this hold for him? Does his spirituality provide support and comfort, or is it contributing to stress as he navigates his own understanding and attempts to “figure out what it all means”? This exploration could offer insight into his values and sense of meaning.
Examining each dimension of the Bio-Psycho-Social-Spiritual Approach enables a more holistic exploration and assessment of an individual, as it connects and evaluates four key domains of their life. This comprehensive view helps in understanding how these areas interact and influence one another, providing deeper insight into the person’s overall well-being and functioning.
Systems Theory
Systems Theory posits that behavior is influenced by various interconnected factors working together as a system, where each part plays a critical role in the overall functioning, and the whole system supports and sustains its parts. A person’s family, friends, school, work, economic status, home environment, and other factors all shape how they think and act. Social workers must observe and assess all the systems impacting a person, as these systems collectively contribute to their behavior and well-being. Strengthening these interconnected systems is key to supporting the individual effectively. This holistic view of individuals within their environment guides the development of the most appropriate interventions.
Within Systems Theory, we also explore roles—routine tasks and behaviors individuals assume within a system. Everyone plays roles, whether they recognize them or not. Examples include leader, caretaker, parent, child, sibling, enabler, scapegoat, citizen, spouse, or worker. Many people derive a sense of identity from their roles, which can reinforce behaviors when positive emotions are tied to them, or motivate change when negative feelings are associated with them. Understanding the roles a person plays, and how they perceive those roles, is essential to comprehending their experiences and identifying their needs.
Ecological Theory
Ecological Theory emphasizes the interaction between individuals and their environments, highlighting how people actively engage with their surroundings and how both the environment and personal development are in a constant state of flux.
“Thoughts become perception; perception becomes reality. Alter your thoughts, alter your reality.” ~ William James
A key aspect of this theory is the significance of perception—how individuals interpret their environments and experiences profoundly affects their overall functioning and well-being. This is true regardless of how issues may appear to a social worker. It’s essential to explore how clients perceive their situations before assuming certain issues are problematic. We must strive to see things from their perspective and understand their feelings, as it is ultimately their story and their reality. In social work practice, this understanding is best achieved by examining individuals, families, policies, communities, and cultures to identify strengths and weaknesses in the transactional processes between these systems.
Bronfenbrenner proposed that an individual’s development is influenced by various elements within their surrounding environment, which he divided into five distinct levels: the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem.
The microsystem is the closest system to the individual and encompasses environments where they have direct interactions. Examples include home, school, and work, typically involving relationships with family, peers, or caregivers. Relationships within the microsystem are bi-directional, meaning that an individual’s responses and reactions can influence those of others, making this the most influential level in the theory.
The mesosystem involves the interconnections between an individual’s various microsystems, influencing one another. These interactions can have positive or negative impacts, depending on whether the elements of the system are working collaboratively (positive) or at odds (negative).
The exosystem refers to settings in which the individual is not directly involved but which still affect them. This includes external decisions that impact a person, such as a child being affected by a parent’s job loss, despite not having any direct role in that decision.
The macrosystem represents the broader cultural context in which the individual lives, including factors like the economy, cultural values, and political systems that influence their life experiences.
The chronosystem encompasses transitions and changes that occur throughout a person’s life. It examines the timing of events in relation to an individual’s development, such as how the death of a loved one affects children at different ages. Additionally, it considers historical events that impact individuals, like the effects of the September 11th attacks.
Jason’s story: Utilizing Systems Theory, we will examine the micro, mezzo, and macro levels, along with the bio-psycho-social-spiritual dimensions, to understand how these factors interact and influence one another. We will also explore the roles Jason identifies with (such as son, brother, student, and friend) and those he may not consciously recognize (like leader, caretaker—if he helps care for younger siblings—and role model). It is essential to assess how Jason perceives each of these roles—whether positively or negatively—to gain deeper insight into his experiences and better support his needs.
Incorporating Ecological Theory allows us to consider how both development and environment are continuously evolving and how these changes impact clients as they navigate their systems. Ecosystems Theory draws from both Systems Theory and Ecological Theory, combining key principles from each to provide a comprehensive view of the complexities within each network Jason experiences. This holistic approach enables us to better understand the interactions among these systems and their effects on his life.
Strengths Perspective
A foundational perspective in Social Work is the Strengths Perspective, which emphasises that all individuals possess strengths and abilities that enable them to grow and adapt. This approach shifts the focus away from problems, allowing us to identify how service users can leverage their strengths to achieve their goals. Service users are regarded as the experts of their own experiences, and their insights are invaluable in exploring moments of resilience. By partnering with service users, we can identify supports and solutions that enhance their capacity for growth. Additionally, it is crucial to evaluate the environment for potential barriers and impacts while assessing both needs and strengths.
Jason’s Strengths:He has a supportive family, with both biological parents present in the home and still together. Jason is aware of his family history, which can inform his understanding of personal challenges. He also benefits from school supports and is physically able, with no developmental delays reported (although it may be useful to further explore any related concerns). Notably, he has found a coping skill—albeit not the most appropriate one—that demonstrates his engagement in self-regulation efforts. Additionally, Jason was able to communicate with the school Social Worker during their meeting instead of remaining closed off, indicating a willingness to engage and seek support.
Exploration of Strengths: The following link discusses the values of strengths-based practice and explores the five types of questions suggested by Dennis Saleebey, a pioneer in developing and promoting Strengths-Based Practice at the University of Kansas. While the example questions focus on parental interactions, the concepts and ideas can be adapted to work with any client population. This resource will provide valuable insights into assessing clients’ strengths and leveraging them in the support process.
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.
Beyond Barriers 