According to Dominelli (2002) social work should provide an appropriate and sensitive service and respond to people’s needs regardless of their social status. Thus, social work’s aim is to reduce the effects of structural inequalities and to empower service users by reducing the effective hierarchy in their immediate interaction and the work they do together.
Oppression and discrimination have effects on service users at different levels including physical, psychological and emotional. Some effects of oppression and inequality are powerlessness, lack of resources, alienation, feelings of unworthiness, unmet needs and subjection to social control. There is no doubt that social workers occupy position of power with direct influence over client’s lives. Hence, there is a need of anti-discriminatory practice in social work.
Dominelli has defined anti-oppressive practise as;
‘…provides an appropriate and sensitive services by responding to people’s needs regardless of their social status …a person centred philosophy…..concerned with reducing the deleterious effects of structural inequalities…..aims to empower users by reducing the effective hierarchy in their immediate interaction and the work they do together’. (Dominelli 2002)
Anti-discriminatory and anti oppressive practice are socialist-collective theories and are concern with social justice and social change. They broaden the view of individualist theories focus only on the subject. Anti-discriminatory practice also has the capacity to explain the sources of oppression in society and challenges the legitimacy and counter the development of oppressive institutions and practice.
According to Thompson (2008) anti-discriminatory practice involves three important aspects. The first one is to recognize the significance of discrimination in people’s lives and how oppressive this can be, especially in disadvantaged groups. Therefore, social workers need to be aware that personal problems sometimes have their roots in discrimination. For example, many of the difficulties people with learning disabilities encounter can be explain by the discrimination they suffer. The second one describes how our own practice can reinforce and add to discrimination. Although much of the discrimination is unintentional does not alter the fact that is unacceptable. Thus, anti-discriminatory practice involves a degree of self-awareness in regard of our own practice. The third important aspect of anti-discriminatory practice includes a social change aspect in the manner of tackling discrimination and its adverse effects. Discrimination can have its roots in our culture and therefore can be institutional. Institutional discrimination can be detected in processes, attitudes, ignorance and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic groups within an organization.
Thompson’s anti-discriminatory theory links personal/psychological, cultural and social/ structural levels of analysis and shows the commitment to social justice and challenge to existing social relations.
The personal level (P) includes thoughts, feelings, attitudes and actions about particular groups in society. This also includes our own prejudices that can stand in way of fair and non-judgmental practice.
The cultural level (C) relates to the commonalities about what is consider ‘normal’ or what is right; it produces conformity to social norms. According to Thompson (2006) the terms ‘normal’ and ‘natural’ have strong ideology overtones and should be used carefully.
The structural level (S) refers to the network of social divisions and the power relations that are closely associated with them. It also relates to the socio-political dimension of interlocking patterns of power and influence.
An important aspect of anti-discriminatory practice is the analysis of discrimination and its origins. However, Sullivan (1998) points that further efforts should be made to understand the psychological processes of stereotyping and prejudice so that more effective ways can be found to enable professionals to practise in ways which are anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive.
In considering how to apply anti-oppressive practice in social work, we need to think about the following:
- Social differences and understanding how they interconnect and overlap.
- Linking the personal and the political, particularly when examining and trying to assess individual life experiences.
- Addressing power and powerlessness.
- Locating events within a historical and geographical perspective.
- Practising reflexivity and mutual involvement.
One of the driving forces of anti-oppressive and anti-discriminatory practice is being able to challenge inequality and recognise that challenges are not always successful and may be very painful both for the person or group being challenged and for those who are challenging. One important aspect of challenging inequality is being self-aware and understanding how your own social location affects the communication between yourself and the individual or group you may be challenging. The process of thinking and reflecting is a core part of working in an anti-oppressive way.
Burke and Harrison offer the following set of challenges for people wanting to work in an anti-oppressive way which:
- is flexible without losing focus
- includes the views of oppressed individuals and groups
- is theoretically informed
- challenges and changes existing ideas and practices
- analyses the oppressive nature of organisational culture and its impact on practice
- includes continuous reflection and evaluation of practice
- has multidimensional change strategies, which incorporate the concepts of networking, user involvement, partnership and participation
- has a critical analysis of the issues of power both personal and structural.
Methods develop from psychology such as psychoanalysis and cognitive-behavioural therapy are examples of theories adopted from other disciplines into the social work field.
The psychoanalytic theory has it origin in the work of Sigmund Freud but has also been develop by other authors such as Bowlby; Erikson; Ainsworth; Hollis and Wood, Klein and Lacan.
Psychodynamic theories have had a great influence in our social work, especially concepts of defence mechanisms, transference and counter-transference, resistance and early trauma. Particularly important for social work are the concept of loss and attachment as well as the knowledge of child personality development which is essential in childcare.
Psychodynamic approaches emphasis on listening, accepting and avoiding giving direction. It is a method for improving relationships among people within their life situations.
The psychoanalytic theory is complex and has its own language which can sometime be difficult to understand. The psychoanalytic theory includes a theory of development (psychosexual development), theory of personality (id, ego and superego) and treatment.
One of the key features of psychodynamic approach is the basic principle that the origin of problems and traumas can be traced back to early childhood experiences.
Cognitive-behavioural therapy has also a great influence in social work particularly in programmes with offenders, depression, substance misuse, phobias and obsessive compulsive behaviour.
The theoretical base for behavioural approaches is learning theory which includes respondent and operant conditioning, observational and cognitive learning
Coulshed (2006) identifies the similarities with the task centred practice, in that both focus on a particular problem and set specific goals, follow specific procedures, test out approaches to problems and impose time limits.
Some of the techniques used include systematic desensitisation, extinction procedures, teaching self-control and thought-stopping techniques, motivating through positive construction, disputing irrational thoughts and working with the environment as well as family and colleagues.
Cognitive-behavioural approach considers the behaviour as a result of external factors, interaction with the environment, and internal, cognitions and organising of information.
An important difference between the cognitive-behavioural approach and psychodynamic approach is that the former is focused on the here and now while the latter focuses on early experiences.
Okitikpi and Aymer (2010) have tried to integrate the anti-discriminatory practice into cognitive-behavioural and psychodynamic approaches. According to them the practitioner of cognitive-behavioural approach would have to display practical anti-discriminatory practice skills such as communication skills, listening skills, language use and a non-prejudicial attitude. They also indicate that psychodynamic have much in common with anti-discriminatory practice because involves paying attention to the interaction between the service user and their familial environment. Also, like anti-discriminatory practice, it is an approach that takes great pride in not judging people negatively on the basis of differences. Okitikpi and Aymer (2010) suggest that practitioners trying to integrate anti-discriminatory practice and psychodynamic would need a high level of awareness of how discriminations are manifested and, from a practical point of view, they may need to investigate and understand the backgrounds of the service user, both in terms of the individual’s personal history as well as the community they identify with.
PROBLEMS AND CRITICS AND WEAKNESSES
I believe that one of the main problems of anti-discriminatory practice is how to teach it to students and practitioners. Miller and Jenkins (1994, p.43) say that 'effective anti-discriminatory practice teaching needs to work at different levels, challenging students' own prejudices, providing them with an understanding of the effects of discrimination, and opening up possibilities for change'. It is a difficult task to eliminate or change people’s prejudices and stereotypes about service users or other member of society. Certainly institutions cannot be anti-discriminatory if the individuals working on them hang on to their own prejudices. In this way Held (1980) suggests that anti-discriminatory practice failed to link individual and social consciousness with institutional analysis and political economy.
A common critic of anti-discriminatory practice refers to anti-discriminatory practice being a separable theory of practice, since it does not refer to many social problems faced by social workers, and might be better regard as a value principle which should permeate all approaches to social work.
O’Hagan (2001) indicates that anti-discriminatory practice focuses mainly on racism and forgets other forms of oppression. According to the same author anti-discriminatory practice focuses on ‘black/white’ distinctions.
Okitikpi and Aymer (2010) mention that anti-discriminatory practice does not draw enough distinction between different groups and that it put everyone under the same marquee. While some groups are subjected to discrimination we cannot assume there are similarities and commonalities between those groups.
Certainly cognitive-behavioural and psychodynamic approaches have not been free of criticism. They are individualist and often ignore social aspects in relation to clients. They concentrate on inside forces ignoring the effects of the capitalist system and the discrimination and oppression taking place in society.
Furthermore, diagnosis manuals used in psychology, such as DSM-IV and CIE-10 decide what is a disorder according to statistical assumptions and not taking into account individuality. They are also based in western parameters of what is normal and because of this do not consider other cultures.
Thus, there are ethical problems with normalisation because it assumes that there are ‘normal’ ways of behaving which are common to all of us so we can decide who is ready to live in the community. An alternative to ‘normalisation’ can be ‘appropriate’ because reflects differences based on, for example, class, race, gender, age or ethnic background. Therefore, the symptoms return after a while or will be substitute for others
Cognitive-behavioural approach has been criticized for not considering the individuality of the person due to its emphasis is in the present and not in the history of the person. Cognitive-behavioural therapy does not focus on the causes of the problems only on the symptoms (Here and Now). Cognitive-behavioural approach is supported by a great amount of research and it is important is social work to base our practice in evidences (evidence-based practice). However, the current budget-led services will only pay for what is ‘evidence’. This means, for instance that because research found that ten sessions of cognitive-behavioural therapy will make a difference in a depressive client, a Local Authority or agency will only pay for those ten sessions.
According to Coulshed (2006) psychoanalysis has an oppressive potential due to the models of human development can be oppressive to gay, lesbian and bisexual people and can therefore, reinforce homophobia. Feminist also criticized the theory suggesting that can imply an inferiority of women and being oppressed by patriarchy.
MANAGERIALISM AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Social workers have professional accountability which means they have a responsibility to work in accordance with a professional code of ethics and values. The anti-discriminatory practice is on the base of the social work values. Social work is in essence anti-discriminatory. However, the reality could not be more different, especially due to the current approach to managerialism and budget-led services.
Okitikpi and Aymer (2010) argue that due to the financial pressure on social services departments during the 1980’s there was a tendency to focus attention on day to day practice. They suggest that there is a de-coupling of politics from the anti-discriminatory practice. Thus, the profession reclined into a reflective practice mode that took into account cultural sensibility and user involvement and encouraged empowerment. They claim that the implementation of anti-discriminatory practice was a diluted version.
According to Dominelli (1988) anti-racist social work became the hallmarks of the radical critique. Openly critical of managerialist interventions in social work practice, these endorsed grassroots empowerment, consumer-oriented perspectives, and collective forms of working. Each theoretical perspective looked at the others with suspicion for the beliefs each advocated and their shortcomings. A constant stream of discontent was articulated by women, black people and welfare claimants who found the services placed at their disposal inappropriate to their needs, difficult to access, and impervious to their influence. They also disliked the bureaucratic nature of the large 'welfare' departments and their unresponsive professionals. Therefore, it is important to include anti-discriminatory practice in organisations in order to avoid oppression and discrimination from social workers.
As an act of accountability, social care and health care professionals are increasingly obliged to involve their service users in the service planning and monitoring process.
Heffernan (2006) claims that apart from managerial or fiscal accountability, the accountability concern is also extended downward to the citizenry and the users of public services. With the looming call for downward accountability to service users, the idea of user choice and transparency is incorporated into the administrative reform doctrines for the public sector. Social work is committed to social justice, we have moral responsibility as part of our role and are thus accountable to the people we work for and the society we are part of.
Unequivocally, accountability denotes a relationship. Day and Klein (1987) define accountability as a face-to-face relationship of individuals, in which responsibility for the discharge of a duty is acknowledged, and the need to give a satisfactory reason for non-compliance or failure is recognized. Here is where anti-discriminatory practice has an important role because social workers are in contact with people.
‘Accountability presupposes agreement both about what constitutes an acceptable performance and about the language of justification to be used by actors in defending their conduct’ (Day and Klein, 1987, p. 5). Furthermore, it implies a definition of the relationship between actors. To talk about accountability is to define who can call for an account and who owes a duty of explanation’
This power relationship appears unproblematic when superiors in the management hierarchy (in managerial accountability), funding providers (in fiscal accountability) and professional institutions (in professional accountability) are conceived as the Principal
The range of people and institutions to which the public sector is accountable includes not only service users, but also the higher authorities in the institutional chain of command, the general public, the news media, peer agencies, donors and many other stakeholders (Kearns, 1996).
Despite the development of managerialism, social work remains a professional enterprise (Duyvendak et al., 2006), and no amount of managerialism removes the social worker’s professional accountability
One of the effects of managerialism has been a move towards standardised and proceduralised forms of practice – ‘ticking boxes’
CONCLUSION
Anti-discriminatory practice is not an approach for different problems or circumstances is the base where to build good practice. It needs to be incorporated across the board. However, anti-discriminatory practice presents difficulties in order to be incorporated to day to day practice. The current managerialism, budget led services and competencies based are a serious barrier to the development of human-centred forms of social work.
Anti-discriminatory practice is at the core of social work values however, managerialism threatens to deprofessionalized social work by putting the task of defining its key roles and requirements for training and practice in the hands of non-social work professionals—that is, people who do not have to work with the substance of 'clients" lives and exclude real participation in this definitional process by service users.
Social Work is in a state of flux. One of the key factors impacting on the direction it is currently taking is market forces. This article argued that the competency-based approach being promoted by General Social Care Council and the government can put in difficulties the implementation of anti-discriminatory practice. This is leading to the demise of the autonomous, reflective practitioner, creating instead, a fragmented, deprofessionalized service that is poorly placed to meet the requirements of anti-oppressive practice.
Personally I have found challenging to link anti-discriminatory practice with managerialism and accountability in social work due to the fact that anti-discriminatory practice is not a ‘theory’ that respond to practical issues but rather an underlying principle of every practice. I believe that further effort should be put in connecting anti-discriminatory practice with the current managerialism in social work.
The latest attempt from Okitikpi and Aymer (2010) has been of great help for understanding how anti-discriminatory practice can be included in psychodynamic and cognitive-behavioural approaches.
REFERENCES
Burton, J. and van den Broek, D. (2009) Accountable and Countable: Information Management Systems and the Bureaucratization of Social Work. British Journal of Social Work 39, 1326–1342.
Coulshed, V. And Orme, J. (2006) Social Work Practice. 4th Edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan.
Coulshed, V. And Mullender, A. (2006) Management in Social Work. 3rd Edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan.
Day, P. and Klein, R. (1987) Accountabilities: Five Public Services. London and
New York: Tavistock Publications.
Dominelli, L. (1996) Deprofessionalizing Social Work: Anti-Oppressive Practice, Competencies and Postmodernism. British Journal of Social Work. 26, 153-175
Dominelli, L. (2004) Social work: theory and practice for a changing profession. Cambridge: Polity Press
Dominelli, L. (2002) Anti-oppressive Social Work Theory and Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan
Duyvendak, J.W., Knijn, T. And Kremer, M. (2006) Policy, People, and the New Professional: De-professionalization and Re-professionalization in Care and Welfare. Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press.
Heffernan, K. (2006) Social work, new public management and the language of service user, British Journal of Social Work, 36, pp. 139–47.
Kearns, K. P. (1996) Managing for Accountability: Preserving the Public Trust in Public and Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Lawler, J. And Harlow, E. (2009) Post modernization: A Phase We’re Going Through? Management in social care. British Journal of Social Work 39, 1326–1342
Miller. T. and Jenkins, P. (1994) 'Developing a framework for anti-discriminatory practice teaching', Social Work Education, 13(2), pp. 41-51
O’Hagan, K. (2001) ‘Cultural Competence in the Caring Profession’. In Payne, M. (2005) Modern social Work Theory.(pp.282-283) 3rd Edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan
Okitikpi, T. and Aymer, C. (2010) Key Concepts in Anti-discriminatory Social Work. London: SAGE
Payne, M. (2005) Modern social Work Theory. 3rd Edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan
Sullivan, E. (1998). Dip.S.W. Students and Anti-Discriminatory Practice: Questions of Learning Outcomes and Assessment. British Journal of Social Work. (1998) 28, 745-761
Thompson, N. (2006) Anti-discriminatory Practice. 4th edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan
Thompson, N. and Thompson, S. (2008) The Social work companion. Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan
Tse Fong Leung, T. (2008) Accountability to Welfare Service Users: Challenges and Responses of Service Providers. British Journal of Social Work 38, 531–545