In 1961, Biestek, an American Catholic priest, compiled what is seen as the first set of values for social work practice. (Shardlow, 2009) He defined seven principles necessary for a good relationship between the social worker and client: Individualisation; the purposeful expression of feelings; controlled emotional involvement; acceptance; a non-judgemental attitude; client self determination; and confidentiality. This ‘list approach’ has been recreated many times over the years and also been the subject of much criticism. (Shardlow, 2009) During the 1970’s, BASW (The British Association of Social Workers) included principles such as: self-determination; non-judgementalism(sic); compassion; professional responsibility; and confidentiality in their codes of ethics. (Barnard, 2008) In 1982, the Barclay Report published findings of its two-year review of the role and tasks of the social worker. It contended that social workers must conduct themselves in a way that shows awareness for an individual’s need for respect, understanding, justice and equality. (Barnard, 2008) The list approach has culminated in the 2002 ‘codes of practice’ set out by the GSCC. This was deemed necessary in section 62 of the Care Standards Act 2000; the GSCC were responsible for constructing the codes and keeping them under constant review. The codes were developed following a three month consultation exercise with social care workers, service users and their carers. (General Social Care Council, 2010) One might question which service users will have been involved in these consultations and how they became involved; suggesting that there may be hierarchies amongst service user groups.
As has been demonstrated, the definition and importance of values can be considered as fluid; they are constantly evolving over time as different theories and models are introduced and as various research and reports are published. Critics of the list approach have argued “There are dangers in this type of list approach in that it leaves practitioners with little more than a set of fixed values that they should bring into complex situations.” (Barnard, 2008, p. 11) Barnard also questions how one list can be applied universally to the social work profession, particularly in the case of Biestek, as it could be argued that these are the interpretations of one individual’s view of what social work is. (Shardlow, 2009)
The last few decades has seen the emergence and development of Anti-oppressive practice (AOP), which has become an integral part of mainstream social work practice, with its focus on human rights and social justice. (Dominelli, 2009) It has grown out of a need for social workers to have cultural and ethnic sensitivity when working with service users and to take into account social inequalities and the oppression they may have experienced in their daily lives. (Dalrymple & Burke, 2006) When working in an anti-oppressive manner, it is vital to understand and value difference; to appreciate that different groups or individuals experience and cope with disadvantage in diverse ways and may view a situation in a different way to a practitioner. This requires the social worker to have an implicit knowledge of the group or individual’s culture and values; but also to fully understand their own values and experiences of power. Social workers have a powerful position within society, however there will have been periods in their lives when they have felt powerless, and it is important to reflect on these times and to try and empower the service user. (Parrott, 2010) “Effective empowerment practice involves understanding the process of change that enables us to feel less powerless.” (Dalrymple & Burke, 2006, p. 113) The first stage of empowerment is concerned with the links between an individual’s personal position and structural inequalities; their access to power and resources. It is the job of the social worker to enable service users to replace feelings of powerlessness with some sense of power over their situation; working in a partnership that is committed to change. “The anti-oppressive principle of reflexivity demands that workers continually consider the ways in which their own social identity and values affect the information they gather.” (Burke & Harrison, 2002, p. 231) A person's thoughts and ideas tend to be intrinsically biased; their values and thoughts will always be represented in the work that they do. Reflexivity denotes mutual involvement; a reflexive relationship is one that is bidirectional and manages to balance power issues.
Anti-discriminatory practice (ADP), a term coined by Neil Thompson (Parrott, 2010) aims to eradicate discrimination from individual practice and challenge it in the practice of others. ADP is tied in with the law; it is illegal to discriminate against any person based on their age, race, gender, religion, learning ability or because of disability. There are some distinctions between AOP and ADP: Dalrymple and Burke suggest that ADP has its limitations as it relies on legislation and policy to achieve change and that AOP goes beyond this, seeking to challenge and understand power differences in society. However, Thompson argues that in practice, the differences between AOP and ADP are minimal. He maintains that the difference lies in the process; discrimination is the process that leads to oppression. (Parrott, 2010) According to Thompson, the workings of oppression can be analysed using a model that examines three levels: the PCS model. P refers to the personal level, concerned with an individual’s views and attitudes towards different groups in society; the C signifies the cultural level, the shared values, or commonalities that form a consensus of what is right or wrong; and the S refers to the structural level, this demonstrates how oppression is sewn into the fabric of society through institutions that support both cultural norms and personal beliefs. Some institutions such as sections of the media, religion and the government can cement the beliefs. (Thompson, 2006) An example of the PCS model being applied could be with homophobia: at the personal level, a service user may make derogatory comments about a gay colleague, culturally, much of the local community are involved in the church and hold firm views on sexual morals; and structurally, tabloid media criticises the ‘unnatural’ practices of homosexual couples. This analysis may help to build an idea of why an individual may behave in a particular way, or why they carry out certain actions. It can also give grounds for challenging inequality by way of helping to understand how something can become a ‘norm’ and inform practitioners to explain and challenge oppression.
Ambiguities and tensions exist between social workers and service users due to the power issues within the relationships. While the connections need to be based on trust and understanding, the powerful position of the practitioner, their duty to enforce rules and follow procedures, will always be apparent which is likely to cause tensions. While the social worker, through their training, will have learnt not to make assumptions of the social differences in the relationship, they must understand that the service user may well have made suppositions based on stereotypes and their own understanding of the social work role; the service user may have had a negative experience with social workers in the past and have preconceived ideas of what it is to be a social worker. These conflicts can be very difficult to overcome. At times, a practitioner’s personal values may clash with those of a service user, for example, if supporting a young woman through her decision to have an abortion, a devout Christian social worker may struggle with their personal and religious values, but ultimately would have to favour their professional values so as to work in an anti-oppressive manner. A practitioner’s values may also conflict with those of the organisation for which they work and it is the job of the social worker to challenge these values; after all, values can only evolve when challenged in this way.
Social workers are required to consider values and ethics in every aspect of their conduct, not just in relation to contact with service users. Code 5.8 states that a social worker must not “behave in a way, in work or outside work, which would call into question your suitability to work in social care services”. (General Social Care Council, 2010) In a recent conduct hearing carried out by the GSCC, Ms K, who was employed as a senior practitioner, forwarded several e-mails from her work account to both internal and external recipients. The content of these messages were deemed inappropriate or offensive, with some of the images showing a lack of respect for diversity and different cultures. It was the committee’s view that Ms K was “acting in a way that was inconsistent with the standards to be expected of a registered social worker” and with regard to the e-mails, it was clear they “emanated from an adults’ services department and this had the tendency to bring the wider profession of social work into disrepute.” (General Social Care Council, 2010, p. 4) This resulted in a twelve month admonishment placed on Ms K’s entry on the register. While Ms K did not place any service users in direct harm, her actions may have called into question the integrity of the social services department in which she worked – If a recipient had been offended and detected the origins of the document it would have reflected badly on both Ms K and the social work field as a whole. The simple act of forwarding of an e-mail, something a lot of people do without thinking, can as a social worker call the individual’s character into question. Similarly there was a case involving a teacher under investigation by the school in which she worked after posting a picture of herself on the social networking site facebook, which showed her on holiday wearing a bikini. (Radnedge, 2010 ) With the increased reliance on e-mail and social networking sites as a means of communication, practitioners need to be cautious of the content of their pages and fastidious about who can access their information.
Reflecting back on the statement at the beginning of this essay, each line is essentially saying the same thing; that every decision, action or behaviour made by an individual is influenced by their value base. Social workers are constantly trying to balance their professional and personal values to ensure good practice. Working within an anti-oppressive framework and ensuring social workers are equipped with the skills, knowledge and understanding of social inequalities and power struggles; whilst being mindful of the GSCC codes of practice and understanding personal values is the only way to effectively deliver services to the people that need them.
Works Cited
Barnard, A. (2008). Values, Ethics and Professionalization: A Social Work History. In N. H. Adam Barnard, The Value Base Of Social Work And Social Care (pp. 5-24). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Burke, B., & Harrison, P. (2002). Anti Oppressive Practice. In Social Work: Themes, Issues and Critical Debates (2nd Edition ed., pp. 227-236). Basingstoke: Pakgrave Macmillan.
Dalrymple, J., & Burke, B. (2006). Anti-Oppressive Practice: Social Care and the Law (2nd Edition ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Dominelli, L. (2009). Anti-oppressive practice: the challenges of the twenty-first century. In R. Adams, L. Dominelli, & M. Payne (Eds.), Social Work: critical Themes and Issues (3rd ed., pp. 49-64).
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
General Social Care Council. (2010). Codes of practice FAQ's. Retrieved January 22, 2011, from gscc.org: http://www.gscc.org.uk/page/90/Codes+of+practice+FAQs.html
General Social Care Council. (2010). Codes of Practice for Social Care Workers. Retrieved January 26, 2011, from www.gscc.org.uk: http://www.gscc.org.uk/cmsFiles/Registration/Codes%20of%20Practice/CodesofPracticeforSocialCareWorkers.pdf
General Social Care Council. (2010, December 13). Notice of decision of the conduct committe. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from General Social Care Council: http://www.gscc.org.uk/cmsFiles/Conduct%20-%20Notice%20of%20Decisions/Brown%20Notice%20of%20Decision.pdf
Parrott, L. (2010). Values and Ethics in Social Work Practice (2nd Edition ed.). Exeter: Learning Matters.
Radnedge, A. (2010 , October 14th). Teacher is investigated over 'semi-naked' Facebook photos. Metro , p. 11.
Reid, K. E. (1981). Formulation of a method, 1920-1936 . Retrieved January 21, 2011, from infed.org: http://www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/reid_groupwork_formulation_method.htm
Shardlow, S. M. (2009). Values, ethics and social work. In R. Adams, L. Dominelli, & M. Payne (Eds.), Social Work - Themes, Issues and Critical Debates (3rd Edition ed., pp. 37 - 48). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Smith, M. K. (2002). Charitable Organisation Socities. Retrieved January 20, 2011, from Infed: http://www.infed.org/socialwork/charity_organization_society.htm
Smith, M. K. (1999). settlements and social action centres. Retrieved January 20, 2011, from Infed: http://www.infed.org/association/b-settl.htm#toynbee
Thompson, N. (2006). Anti-Discriminatory Practice (4th Edition ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
by
skidadle (student)
