Generally, social theory informs our knowledge which stimulates us to research a phenomenon. Therefore, a constant relationship exists between research and theory. They are inter-related and “symbiotic” ( Adams 2002; 260). While Bulma (1986:208) , called this relationship “ mutual dependence.” We may for instance through practise be concerned with teenagers that abuse drugs and decide to find out why they engage in this anti-social behaviour by carrying out a research. Armed with our observational, experiential, social and psychological knowledge of teenagers, we form an hypothesis of the study we want to carry out. If the hypothesis is confirmed through the theory we base our knowledge upon, our hypothesis then becomes a theory. When we theorize before carrying out research to confirm our theory this is called “deduction”.(see May 1997).
Also, sometimes we may observe certain frequency in our social work practise that cot-death of babies are more common with mothers that sleep in a separate room from their babies, this then becomes our hypothesis, if we then gather data to confirm this, our hypothesis now becomes an inductive theory. (see May 1997 page 30).
Having established relationships between knowledge, theory and practise, and how they relate and inter-relate with research, it is relevant to raise the issue of methodology in research. Methodology “is a way of thinking about and studying social reality”(Straws and Korbien 1998 : 3). In social work and social research, methodology of research is polarised into two
02007869/SW06p
main categories: the quantitative and the qualitative (see Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003 : 62). Research itself can be defined as “a careful systematic study or investigation in some field of knowledge undertaking to establish facts”(Grinelli and Williams 1990:40). Qualitative research is any type of research that produces findings not arrived at by statistical procedures on other means of qualification”(Strauss and Corbin 1998:10).
They are usually subjective, more laden with traditional social work values (Thompson 2000), more difficult to quantify (Hammersley 2000:159).
While quantitative theory is a theoretically informed framework of research that produces findings and aims to establish a relationship between two or more variables”(Aston and Bowles1998:8) It is a type of research that rests on the belief that there is an objective reality that can be accurately measured, and which operates according to natural laws that can be discovered by rigorous, objective research. This is associated with positivist who believe that research into social phenomena could yield `reality` that would be objective and independent of the researcher; “that conclusions about `reality` may be objectively drawn without reference to the context in which it has been constructed”, (Everitt et al.1992:18).Some social researchers and academics have strongly criticised this point and will be pointed out latter.
Having analysed the main categories of types of research, it is pertinent here to address the question of whether social work practice be based on research/empirical evidence? Parton (2000:450) writing on this issues noted “through its history, one of the central tensions has been between the scientific and more humanist client centred approach to practice”.
Essentially, there are the proponents of those that argue in support that practice should be based on “research evidence” (Macdonald 2002:424), who favour quantitative research and are more positivistic in their argument that social work practice should be on the basis of empirically based research that encourages practitioners and researchers to find and use reliable, accurate evidence rather than basing their decisions alone on subjective personal judgement. They include among others, Macdonald (2002), Sheldon (2001). This approach tends to be scientific in method (see Richardson 2000), whereby “cognitive behavioural practices are linked to scientific experiments, and the use of control versus treatment groups in other to discover effective intervention and measure changes in behaviour”,(Gibbs 200:694). It borrows heavily from the thinking of the
02007869/SW06P
Behaviourist who believes that behaviours could be quantified and measured, and therefore through the use of control and treatment groups in experimental research, effective intervention and measurement in behaviour that has occurred in this intervention is possible.
Essentially, evidence based practice is “the principle that all decisions in our field should be based on the best available research evidence and should inform our understanding of the origins and developments of social problems”().
Sheldon (2001:803-805) justified the use of evidence based practice by putting up the argument that human emotions, perception and cognition, do get in the way of objective decision-making process. For example, a practitioner who has suffered abuse in childhood may be affected in decision-making process and thereby over react in a case of child abuse. Sheldon argued the use of evidence based practice (EBP), should make practice more objective because as a scientist detaches himself from his object of investigation, EBP practitioners too will be able to do the same.
The opponents of EBP argued that while there is a need for social work to involve precise, testable theories, it is also essential for the profession to be open to “real moral, social and political dilemmas and lean to live with inevitable uncertainty, confusion and doubts”(Jordan 1986:25), that characterize the profession. While some believe that EBP would promote bureaucratisation of care service. Blaug(1995:424), for instance lamented over the increasing “bureaucratisation of human caring” especially in the area of child rearing and family health which according to Blaug has become increasingly rule governed and professionalised thereby robbing the practice of crucial informal engagement with client through communicative reasoning.
The fear is also expressed that basing practice on research evidence has reduced practice to the use of formal procedures and more use of questionnaires especially in the assessment process and the intervention options available to practice have been greatly reduced to “practice codes, highly systematized practice”(ibid,:428).
It has also been argued that EBP can never entirely substitute for the wisdom of the practitioner. Although Macdonald (2002), who is one of those vehemently in support of EBP, claimed that this approach supports the use of practice wisdom, it is obvious that practice wisdom does not fit comfortably well with their principles of systematisation, regulation, formalized rules and individual professional judgment.
02007869/SW06P
Webb(2001) criticised the methodological base of EBP by saying that it is questionable since they are mostly based on the philosophy of behaviourism and positivism and accused the proponent of EBP practice of being guilty of generalization for thinking that evidence based on observing quite relatively few people could be used to postulate theories and offer explanation that would be valid for everybody and also accused those championing this approach of ignoring “the complexity of actual decision making process in social work.
So far, these are some of the views of those for and against social work practice being based on research evidence. The limited length of this essay does not permit many more views of opponents and proponents. At this juncture, it is relevant to use these arguments to examine the Department of Health guidance on assessment of children in need. At the moment, the government’s view is that practice should be “evidence- based …and the use of knowledge from research …record and update information systematically”(DoH2000: 16:1.58), this is in their issued guidance that directs that assessment should based on knowledge from research findings, theoretical ideas and practical experience to build a correct situation and analysis of what is happening in the family being assessed.
Briefly, the guidance is introduced to promote or improve decision-making process in the assessment of children in need and their families. It urges practitioners to focus on the child and never lose focus while considering other dimensions in the assessment process. It is a practice framework that is supposed to have a general applicability and aids in understanding “what is happening to all children whatever circumstances they may be growing”(DoH 2000:26:2.25). The guidance asks practitioners using it to reflect on how what they are doing impacts on the their assessment, and whether their decision is having a successful impact on their clients (see ibid:p. 86:6.30).
The guidance represents the framework for the assessment of children in need in a triangular form with three inter-related areas: the developmental need of the child, the parenting capacity and family, and environmental factors (DoH 2000). The DoH’s guidance is reportedly based on research evidence and is to be used as a framework for EBP. There is no doubt that EBP has a lot of advantages and likely to remain the approach to practice in social work for a long time since it enjoys a strong support from the government and suits the Government very well because of the quantitative nature of approach that allows them to monitor the
02007869/SW06P
profession better in terms of money spent and the quality of service. Being child centred, the EBP as reflected in the guidance allows an assessment that is more empowering and objective to children with the application of research evidence in practice. The guidance based on research evidence, if followed allows assessment to be “transparent”(see Macdonald 2000), since decision could be explained better using research evidence, and more empowering to the family being assessed by making practitioners to be more sensitive to family’s unity, to exploit strength and not weakness of the family. The guidance also alerts practitioners to the issue of power imbalance by laying emphasis on the need to give children who are old enough a say in matters affecting them as laid down in the 1989 Children Act throughout the process of assessment. Using guidance like this that is based on research evidence brings out more vividly not only that theory is strongly linked with practice, but also the crucial role theory plays in practice, and by so doing enhances the prestige of social work.
EBP encourages and promotes training thereby making practitioners to be more efficient in their practice (seeDoH2000b), by asking practitioners to update their knowledge and make it up to date. This will enhance practice. Swinkels et al.(2002:342), observes that EBP is “ethical, reasonable, and economical”. This is reflected in the practice guardian by asking practitioner to be sensitive to race, culture and to the fact that some disabled black children could suffer double discrimination by virtual of being black and disabled. EBP has many more advantages such as having a huge potential to make use of information technology by developing computerized database where practitioners can have easy access to relevant researches and information to aid them in decision process.
However, some of these advantages of EBP are also its “Achilles heals”. One of the disadvantages of EBP is the choice of theories, which is crucially one of the reference points of this essay. It makes choice of theories limited to mostly those that can easily be tested and quantified. Although Macdonald (2002:426) speaks glowingly in support of EBP and argues that contrary to general belief, the approach “advocates for professional judgement”, however with his strong promotion of research evidence, agency standardized practice and systematic practice, it is not too difficult to see how professional judgement has been relegated to the background and practitioners reduced to technocrats (see Blaug 1995).
Also the nature of evidence produced by EBP is questionable not only for the reason of methodology as mentioned earlier on, but also on the
02007869/SW6P
grounds that what gets researched is usually largely determined by government agency with their hidden agenda that may sometimes be hidden for financial or political purpose.(see Williams:1990:23).This point of view is buttressed by government declaration in the “Framework for the assessment of children in need” which says that they aim “to influence the research agenda and analyse and disseminate research funding”(DoH 2000:1:1.3).There should be a separate body that fund research that is totally independent of the government except in finance. The present arrangement in which the government funds and directly or indirectly control research makes the nature of research evidence to be viewed with suspicion.
Everitt et al (1992:35) also observed that “the epistemology and methodology of positivist (EBP) do not sit easily in the repertoire of the social welfare practitioner”, because the values of EBP such as neutrality and determinism are at variance with the values of social work which encourages empathy in his practitioners.
Most importantly is the question of ethical consideration researches. Ethical consideration plays leading role even determines government position of supporting EBP because of limited resources, the government has taken the utilitarian ethical position – that is, the general good of the majority-“the right action is that which produces the greatest balance of good over evil”(Banks 2001:31), thus the government faced with a dilemma of wanting to satisfy and promote individual choice and determination on one hand and limited resources on the other, has seen the way out in EBP as reflected in the DoH’s guidance on assessment of children in need by claiming on one hand to be interested in improvement of service through professionalisation, systematisation, effectiveness and thereby on the surface, the government looks as if they are on the side of the government , whereas in actual fact client’s choice is limited. Practitioners are supposed to use the quickest possible method to solve client needs. So, no matter how good research evidence is to a practitioner, if using such evidence will invite the wrath of the managers in terms of research will obviously not see the light of day with the practitioner. What EBP is saying is that practitioners could cut their coat of client accordingly to their size, when in reality by reason of resources, new managerialism, agency regulations, the practitioner could only cut the coat of client not according to the size of customer, but according to the cloth available. This is one dilemma in the EBP.
Another ethnical dilemma in the framework for the assessment of children in need may occur where the child is seen as the problem but the
02007869SW06P
real underlying problem is the unacknowledged volatile, unhealthy marital relationship in the family. The practitioner may face a dilemma whereby, if he/she should point this out, the fragile relationship may break, which will be more detrimental to the child’s developmental needs. Practitioner may face dilemma over the issue of confidentiality when a child being assessed discloses certain information about the family which the family wouid rather prefer to be kept confidential.
For instance, the child may disclose to the practitioner in confidence that his parents not only use drugs but that they are drug paddlers. The dilemma is should the practitioner tell the parents or the police? (See Wilkinson 1998:77).
On the anti-oppressive practice, (Dominelli 1996:170) defines it as “practice which addresses social discussions and structural in equalities in the work that is done with people whether they be clients or workers… aims to provide more appropriate and sensitive services by responding to people’s needs regardless of their social status”. Regarding the issue of anti-oppressive, it is very important that in using this DOH’s guide line for assessment of needs, the practitioner should not make the mistake of focusing too much on the adult’s point of view at any stage of the process of the assessment process. The child should be given a voice too.
However, there is the danger of being too sympathetic and focused on the child that the parents’ point of view is not properly considered. A good practitioner must have the skill to balance these oppressing factors in order to offer a non-oppressive practice (see Daniel et el cl 1999).
For a good anti-oppressive, practitioner must examine their experience and not allowed this to influence practice. For instance a practitioner who has suffered abuse himself/herself should not allow this to influence his/her decision in the process of assessment. To do this will be oppressive to the client. On the issue of confidentiality, in order to ensure ant-oppressive practice, any information being disclosed should enjoy the consent of clients before such information are disclosed unless such disclosure is in line with section 115 of the Criminal Disorder Act 1998 which allows disclosure without the consent of the client if it is in the public interest to do so (DoH 2000:95). Also, clients have right under the data protection Act 1984 and 1998 to have access to personal information being held about them.(see Brayne et al 2001), and if disclosure does not affect assessment, they should not be denied this, to do this will amount to oppressive practice.
02008969/SW06P
Practitioners should be conscious of the fact that institutional racism exists in the provision of services for black children and their families,(seeAhmed1987:19), and that black children are at a double disadvantage in terms of being potentially opened to discrimination on account of their race (see Golgstein 2002:406). Practitioners must build this in their assessment process in order to ensure an anti- oppressive practice.(see DoH:2000B:13:1.36).Likewise patterns of family life varies with culture, class and community and just as the Assessment guidance rightly points out that there is no perfect way to bring up children, any assessment process must ensure that care is taken to avoid value judgement and stereotype in the assessment process in order to reflect anti-oppressive practice. In practice though, I must add my observation of the guidance that while it claims to be objective, the framework doesn’t say much about cultural validity of using EBP and how the framework was culturally validated since most of the researches and experience of practitioners upon which the framework is based were conducted and from Britain.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the DoH’s guidiance on assessment of needs like all man-made objects, is not without its faults. Some of these faults have been enumerated above. However, on reflection, I believe it is quite useful in the assessment of children in need most especially the disabled and children from ethnic minority because the guidance alerts practitioners to the pits of mistake they can easily fall into such as racism, discrimination, stereotype, not making children the focus of assessment and subjective practice to name a few. EBP as reflected in the guidance also makes possible and promotes the use of evidential research in practice. More importantly EBP as reflected in the guidance allows practitioners to reflect on their practice. Using research methodologies has the advantage of helping practitioners to develop a kind of critical reflective practice which helps to determine to what extent has their strategy worked (see Darymple and Burke1995).
However, the profession of social work is essentially about dealing with human beings who have values and behaviours that are quite very complex and reflection of inner psychological functions, which are extremely difficult to assess and quantify (Sullivan 1998:756). I also concur with Jordan (1986:25), who opined “many problems that social work tackles are rather unsolvable and far more complex and remote forces than a precise scientific knowledge-for –use” can accommodate.
It has also been asserted that with all pomp and pageantry surrounding EBP, “there is little evidence to date on the efficiency in terms of improving the overall lot of the patient in the beleaguered health and social care systems” (see Swinkel et al.20002:346. Also the nature of what constitute evidence seems to be the main concern in the perspectives presented by both the supporters and opponents of EBP. as Swinkles et al. noted that EBP sits “uncomfortably in professions such as social work , which have traditionally relied on qualitative methods as a means of generating new knowledge and informing practice but which are often neglected within EBP”(ibid,).
Also the assessment of children in need, being usually multidisciplinary, as reflected in the guidance, makes it difficult for a practitioner evaluating and reflecting on practice, to conclude that success of his approach is solely because of his research evidence he has used when other disciplines are involved.
I also agree with Webb (2001:71), who opined that EBP with its systematisation, regimentation, managerialism really reduces social work practice to “framework of routinised operation”. Thus the DoH’s guidance for the assessment of children in need reduces practice to a routined operation and limits the choice of theory a practitioner can use. I will like to make a final conclusion by saying that EBP is good but the way the proponent of the approach are championing it as a all-or-non affair and forcefully “confining rational decision making procedures to those utilized by natural sciences…reduces professional judgement to decisionism”, may be bad for practice because advanced EBP may turn practitioners into another bureaucrats, too formal for client and lacking in warmth.
