8Developing a Theoretical Framework for Practice

Heather I. Peters

Developing a theoretical framework for social work practice is one of the key aspects of social work education, although many students, and even educators and practicing social workers, are not clear on what this means or how to go about it. One of the perceived tensions between theory and practice is that of theories versus skills. Students often enter social work programs wanting to learn skills to allow them to work effectively with clients, whereas educators can appear to be more interested in teaching theories. While the two are closely connected, bridging the gap between them can be challenging. This chapter describes how theories and skills necessarily go hand-in-hand and lays out a process to support students in developing their own theoretical framework for practice in a way that will make clear how this framework informs, and is crucial to, one’s social work practice and the use of practice skills.

Gap Between Theory and Practice

Social work academics have been discussing the gap between theory and practice and describing it as a common challenge in the social work discipline for decades (Bogo & Vayda, 1998; Mullaly, 2007; Mullaly & Dupré, 2019; Peters, 2010; Pilalis, 1986; Reynolds, 1942, 1963). Students commonly experience difficulties in integrating various theories with practice when they begin field work (Bogo & Vayda, 1998; Vayda & Bogo, 1991). In addition, social work programs often struggle with how to assist students in making this link (Boisen & Syers, 2004).

There are two related tensions in discussions of theory and practice that come up during social work practice and in field placements. First is the age-old debate of which comes first: theory or practice. In this case, it is typically academics stating that theory should guide practice, while practitioners less disposed to theory suggest that personal experiences of practice should guide future interventions (Lee, 1982; Smith, 1971). Others suggest that practitioners utilize theory even if they are not aware of it (Mullaly, 2007; Mullaly & Dupré, 2019; Reay, 1986). This happens as practitioners examine their experiences for patterns that they then use to guide their future actions. Through this process, people essentially develop informal theories of their own making, which then guide their practice (Mullaly & Dupré, 2019). These experiential theories are rarely articulated let alone subjected to analysis and research. Using self-created and unexamined theories can, at the least, lead to somewhat disorganized work with clients, and at the worst, can cause damage and distress (Mullaly, 2007; Mullaly & Dupré, 2019; Robbins et al., 1999). Thus, this chapter lays out a perspective of how and why it is crucial that theory inform one’s practice and use of practice skills.

The second debate around theory and practice is whether one should use a specific theoretical approach in which the practitioner has expertise, or if practitioners should use aspects of various theories that are relevant to them and their work (Poulter, 2005; Robbins et al., 1999). The latter eclectic approach to a theoretical framework where a practitioner mixes and matches pieces of theories that work for them is also problematic. This approach often arises from a superficial understanding of theory and can result in the misuse of theory in practice settings (Mullaly, 2007; Robbins et al., 1999). Using theories in this way can result in an approach that is inconsistent and inaccurately applied, potentially resulting in distress for clients rather than being of benefit to them. Yet using only one theory to guide practice can be somewhat constraining and is frustrating when a different theory may be better suited to a particular social issue. Students are taught to be flexible and responsive to clients’ needs and to be prepared to do things differently if something does not work for a client. Why would this not also be true for the use of theories? The development of a theoretical framework for practice seeks to strike a balance between these perspectives, where one grand or overarching theory is the foundation of one’s practice, and a number of practice theories are used within that context. This is explained further on in this chapter.

Social work is not alone with these dilemmas; these problematic understandings of theory and practice can pose issues in other professional disciplines as well. The potential devastating effects of the misuse, or lack of use, of theories is important to understand. It is necessary to utilize practice theories which are well-established and which have been analyzed, thoroughly detailed, and studied to ensure that they are internally consistent, predictive, and have positive outcomes (Hammond et al., 2020). The term “evidence-based practice” is relevant here, as the theories used in practice need to be demonstrated to have the desired outcome that is beneficial for clients. It also means that social workers are responsible to ensure that they understand theory, how it guides their practice, and that they can articulate a theoretical framework for practice.

Activity and Reflection 1

Ask social workers and others at your field placement how they use (or do not use) theories in their practice and which theories they use and why (or why not). Reflect on their responses in your field journal and summarize what you learn on the next page.

A Brief Theoretical History of Social Work

The social work profession has drawn on theories from a number of other disciplines in its search for a unifying theory for the profession (Lundy, 2011). Theories and information from disciplines such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, women’s studies, and more have influenced social work at different times, and many are often still utilized in the context of social work practice. The variety of theories that have influenced social work has led to a great diversity in how social work is practiced. As a relatively new discipline in the late 1800s and early 1900s, social work explored many theories and types of practice (Lundy, 2011). An understanding of the history of social work practice is necessary to clarify the two approaches that ended up vying to be the unifying approach in social work.

An approach to social work that blames individuals evolved out of the English Poor Laws of the 1500s whereby poverty was addressed with punishment for the purpose of ensuring that people had the “proper” motivation to seek employment (Carniol, 2005). In the late 1800s, the Charitable Organization Society (COS) developed in Britain and quickly spread to North America (Carniol, 2005; Reynolds, 1963). The Poor Laws informed this perspective of social work such that COS workers focused on identifying the flaws of individuals seeking support services in an effort to determine if they were deserving of help. The focus of these charitable and religious organizations, although more “friendly” than the Poor Laws’ focus on punishment, continued to address poverty and other social issues by “fixing” the individual and by distinguishing between those they determined to be deserving or undeserving of help (Carniol, 2005; Finkel, 2006; Hick, 2002; Lundy, 2011).

The late 19th century also heralded the development of the settlement house movement in both Canada and the United States, with a shift in perspective that understood poverty, and other social issues, as embedded in societal structures (Finkel, 2006; Hick, 2002; Lundy, 2011; Reynolds, 1963). This social service movement sought to identify structural and systemic barriers facing the people they worked with, thus striving to change structures and the system, more so than individuals. Since then, social work has been divided between two streams, the first of which focuses on assisting individuals in meeting their needs and coping with their environments, and the second, which seeks political and social reform to address the root causes of poverty and other issues (Lundy, 2011). The separation between the two streams of social work has never been completely clear cut. For example, the settlement houses, in addition to addressing social structures, also sought to “reform the poor” (Finkel, 2006, p. 86). Other movements also encompassed social justice thinking to various extents, including the urban reform and social gospel movements (Guest, 2006). Yet these two distinctions are important.

These two historic ways of practicing social work are connected to the types of theories that have informed the discipline over the years. Theories to support individual change and theories to understand systemic issues and promote structural change have all became enveloped into the social work field and are still relevant today.

Activity and Reflection 2

Part A

Watch the 30-minute video Theories in Social Work Practice (citation found in the resources section at the end of this chapter and can be accessed through your university’s library). In your journal, reflect on which theories you would like to use in your social work practice and why, as well as any theories you would not want to use and why not.

Part B

Think about the theories you have studied in your social work education and field placement, thus far. List as many theories as possible in the space below. We are going to use this list as the basis of additional activities further on in this chapter, so try to come up with 15 or so theories from as many diverse disciplines as possible. Feel free to refer back to other chapters in this text, to another theory textbook, or draw on the video Theories in Social Practice to add more theories to your list.

Organizing Theories: Structural or Casework

At first glance, a long list of theories can be confusing when one is trying to develop a theoretical framework for practice. There are many theories, and most of them sound interesting and appear to address relevant aspects of people’s lives. Combined with the knowledge that an eclectic approach to using bits and pieces of various theories is not considered good practice (Mullaly, 2007; Robbins et al., 1999), it can be overwhelming to see so many potentially beneficial theories and wonder how to choose which to use in practice. Understanding the connection between theories and the two historic streams of social work is a starting point for organizing theories.

There are two streams of social work theories, the first which focuses on social structures and the second which focuses on individuals and families. It is the focus on social structures, coming out of the settlement houses, that is connected to the current development of structural social work theory, anti-oppressive theory, and other social justice perspectives in social work that have an emphasis on structural or systemic change (Carniol, 2005; Lundy, 2011; Mullaly & Dupré, 2019). In contrast, the casework perspective, coming out of the COS, is typically connected to current clinical and micro approaches with more of a focus on supporting individuals and families in personal change. These two streams are still evident in social work theories and practice today (Lundy, 2011; Mullaly & Dupré, 2019).

Mullaly and Dupré (2019) describe a method of organizing theories that will be used here. They call the theories related to casework and the COS the conventional (or traditional) approaches. The theories related to settlement houses and a structural analysis are called progressive approaches to practice. The social work profession and academic discipline has increasingly become aligned with progressive approaches as social workers recognize that challenging oppression is a political act. However, this does not mean that conventional approaches are “wrong”, or are off-limits for practice. According to Mullaly and Dupré, “although the conventional approaches . . . have historically reinforced the status quo, they can be used in progressive ways” (2019, p. 5). Thus, while it is important to decide whether to practice from a conventional or progressive framework, there are ways to incorporate work with individuals into progressive approaches.

Activity and Reflection 3

In this exercise, connect each theory you listed in Activity and Reflection 2, Part B. above, with either a progressive approach, which seeks to change structures, or a conventional approach, which focuses more on individual growth and change. Rewrite the theories from Activity and Reflection 2 into the most relevant category in the box on the next page.

In the 1960s, one of the proposed theories to unify the social work discipline was systems theory (Lundy, 2011; Mullaly & Dupré, 2019). Instead of focusing solely on the individual or family, systems theory identifies the environment within which the person or family is located as important to understanding and working with people. While this addition of the environment to theories focused on the individual or family was a significant step forward, there is a general consensus in the social work discipline that ultimately the theory did not go far enough to recognize structures of oppression, nor did it propose structural change (Lundy, 2011; Mullaly & Dupré, 2019). Mullaly and Dupré (2019) add systems theories to the conventional approaches, albeit in a type of sub-category to acknowledge the environmental context.

Table 8.1 lays out a sampling of theories in these three different categories. It is grounded in the discussion above and is based on Table 8.1 in the Mullaly and Dupré text (2019, p. 6). The theories listed here are a small sampling of the numerous theories that could be included.

Activity and Reflection 4

Compare the theories here and the categories they are placed in, with your responses in Activity and Reflection 3. For a deeper understanding of progressive and conventional approaches and their connections to theory, read the chapter titled The Social Work Vision, in the textbook The New Structural Social Work: Ideology, Theory and Practice (Mullaly & Dupré, 2019). In your journal, reflect on how to understand the differences between theories consistent with a progressive approach and those consistent with the two types of conventional perspectives. Make connections to the Mullaly and Dupré (2019) chapter in your journal writing.

Organizing Theories: Grand or Practice

This next section of the chapter explores a second way of organizing theories. Having two ways of organizing theories may be confusing at first, so I use the analogy of organizing vegetables to explain it. One way to organize vegetables is to put all the root vegetables in one group and all the vegetables grown above ground in another group. Alternatively, vegetables could be grouped by colour, causing the groupings to change. These two ways of organizing vegetables can both be useful in different contexts; it does not mean that one is better than the other. Likewise, using two ways to organize theories does not mean that one is right and one wrong, nor that one is more important or useful than the other. The need for two ways to organize theories will become clear as we move through the next sections. These are important elements of developing a theoretical framework for practice.

Many theoretical analysts, across disciplines, have described another way of organizing theories; they distinguish between levels of theory, or grand theories and practice theories (Fook, 1993; Hammond et al., 2020; Marchant, 1986). Grand theories are those that describe an overarching understanding of society, social issues, and how the world works. As these theories try to explain many issues and contexts at a broad level, they are sometimes seen as being more abstract or even vague, possibly even confusing (Hammond et al., 2020). Practice theories, also known as middle-range theories (Hammond et al., 2020), are narrower in scope and typically focus on a specific issue or concept.

An example of a grand theory is critical theory, which came out of Marxist theory and seeks to connect society, social relationships, and economics, among other things (Mullaly & Dupré, 2019). An example of a practice theory is the stages of change theory developed by Prochaska and Di Clemente, which was developed to specifically explain one formulation of addictions and posits ideas on how to better motivate people to reduce or stop their substance use based on what stage of change they are at when in counselling (Prochaska et al., 1992; Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983). Critical theory is complex and abstract and speaks to people in the context of society, nation states, and globalization, while the stages of change theory is very specific, smaller in scale, and focused on an individual’s struggle with the issue of substance use.

Activity and Reflection 5

The fifth exercise asks you to think about the theories you listed in Activity and Reflection 2, Part B and identify if they are a grand theory or a practice (or middle-range) theory. Using your list of theories from Activity and Reflection 2, Part B, place each theory in the column below with which it has the best fit. Notice as you do this, that the theories will not be in the same groups as they were in Activity and Reflection 3 or Table 8.1 above.

Levels of Practice: Connecting Grand Theories, Practice Theories, and Skills

Fook (1993) connected grand theories, practice theories, and skills in a format that described these as levels of theories and skills. Level one is that of grand theories, level two is practice (or middle-range) theories, and level three is skills or activities used in social work practice. In her book, Fook (1993) connected radical (also known as critical or structural) theory to social work practice by linking these three levels. It is in identifying these linkages that we begin to develop a theoretical framework for practice.

A theoretical framework for practice needs to include a number of elements. First, it needs to include at least one grand theory that provides an overarching explanatory understanding of society and social problems. Second, it needs to contain a number of practice theories that are directly related to the choice of grand theory so that the framework is internally consistent.

Keep in mind that, as discussed earlier, it is problematic to incorporate too many theories into one’s practice (Robbins et al., 1999). It takes time to learn about a theory in enough depth to use it accurately in one’s professional work. Incorporating too many theories initially means a person is likely utilizing bits and pieces of various theories in an eclectic fashion, rather than understanding them in depth and using them in a consistent way. Proceeding with an eclectic approach can be damaging to clients rather than beneficial. We can know a few things in great depth, or many things in a superficial way, but especially when new to practice it is not possible to quickly become an expert in many theories. Therefore, when starting out in the social work profession it is better to start with a fewer number of theories in order to ensure an adequate depth of knowledge of the theories to be able to use them effectively and accurately. As a person uses these theories through the years, and continues with their professional development, over time they will be able to add more practice theories to their framework in a slow, studied, and consistent manner, ensuring that each new theory fits into the framework in a coherent way. I suggest that students start with one grand theory and a small number (three to five) of related practice theories. Table 8.2 is an example of a grand theory and five practice level theories consistent with that grand theory.

Critical and structural theories have at their core an analysis of power, privilege, and oppression and seek to challenge structures and systems that create or maintain oppression (Fook, 2002; Mullaly & Dupré, 2019). It is possible to see in this example that the practice theories in the second column of Table 8.2 fit well with critical theory and/or structural theory. Yet, while social work practice from a critical or structural framework may indicate the need to work at a macro level, practitioners can work from these perspectives even while working in micro or clinical contexts. In this case, there are other aspects of clinical work and approaches that we may want to bring into this framework too. Casework is necessary in clinical practice, and a practitioner may want to incorporate strengths-based or problem-solving approaches as well. However, casework, strengths-based and problem-solving approaches grew out of a conventional framework, while critical and structural theories are progressive approaches. This is where having the framework, and the grand theory, in place is key. In this context, we could incorporate these conventional approaches while ensuring that they are implemented from and within a progressive framework. For example, instead of utilizing casework as an approach to working with clients, we can identify that casework is a skill or activity that we use, within a progressive framework, to organize, plan and document our practice with clients. To acknowledge the progressive theoretical framework, a social worker would maintain casework records and case planning in a progressive manner such as: ensuring the documentation of experiences of oppression and privilege by the client; planning for consciousness-raising activities to educate clients on the structural nature of the social problems they are experiencing (such as racism, heterosexism, sexism, ableism, classism, ageism, etc); connecting clients with others experiencing similar social problems; actively challenging structural barriers and documenting such barriers as structural for clients (rather than a personal flaw) in case notes; advocating for clients; encouraging clients to lobby for structural change; etc. In this way casework is not a practice approach, which is inherently conventional in nature, but aspects of casework are adapted and molded into a progressive theoretical framework. The literature has identified challenges to incorporating conventional approaches into a progressive theoretical framework, but it is important, possible and necessary to work through the challenges (Baines, 2000, 2003). In the previous example, one way to address this challenge is to first not utilize conventional approach at a theoretical level, but rather to identify the techniques within the approach that are useful, and second to articulate the ways in which those techniques can be utilized in a progressive manner. Without this second step we risk simply wanting to be progressive without actually doing it, and accidentally sliding into a conventional practice.

Finally, the last piece to incorporate into our framework is that of skills or activities that we use in social work practice. The grand theory provides the overarching structure to our social work practice and keeps us on track, ensuring that our practice is connected and consistent. The grand theory informs and influences our choice of practice theories. Both the grand and practice theories in turn create the foundation for how we use practice skills, what kinds of questions we ask clients, and what awareness-raising and educational focuses we have in sharing information with clients, groups, and communities.

Ultimately, the choice of which grand theory and practice theories to use is yours to make. As a discipline, social work’s contribution to practice and study is to bring together people, communities, societies, environments, and structures to create a unique understanding of how society works and the barriers to well-being. In Canada, social work education through the Canadian Association of Social Work Education (CASWE; 2014) is clear that understanding issues of oppression at micro, mezzo and macro levels is key to our understanding of the world and our practice. This is consistent with Mullaly and Dupré’s (2019) description of a progressive vision of social work and with other discussions in the literature (Baines, 2000; Campbell 2003a, 2003b). Thus, I suggest that social workers ought to set as their foundation a grand theory that is consistent with this progressive vision; practice theories need to be consistent, not in conflict, with that approach. However, the choice is yours.

Activity and Reflection 6

Part A

The short (three minute) video called Counseling Theory vs. Techniques helps explain how to incorporate practice theories or techniques from various theories into your overall theoretical orientation or framework. Watch the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3yBPuf46Jo

Part B

Based on this chapter and your knowledge of theories, create your own theoretical framework for social work practice. Choose one grand theory, three to five practice theories that are theoretically and philosophically consistent with your grand theory, and identify related skills and activities consistent with your overall framework. Describe how your choice of grand and practice theories will influence which skills you will use in practice as well as how you will use those skills differently. Record your theoretical framework here and reflect on why you made the choices you did in your journal.

To determine if the practice theories you have chosen are related to each other, look to see if they are in the same column in Activity and Reflection 3 or Table 8.1. Grouping theories into conventional or progressive categories is the starting point for understanding if they are related to each other (in the same column) or are not (in different columns). Theories that are not related to each other may be in conflict with each other. To prevent this, the starting point is to identify, and refer back to, the overarching grand theory. The next step is to acknowledge which components of non-related approaches are being used, and then identify what will be done to ensure these techniques are being utilized in manner consistent with the grand theory and your overall framework (as per the example given in text before Table 8.3). Describe how you will do this in your journal reflections. (For more information on grand versus practice theories and on ways to incorporate techniques from one approach into a different theoretical framework approach see Fook 1993 and Mullaly and Dupré 2019, especially chapter 1 on a social work vision).

Conclusion

Your field placement is an excellent opportunity to explore numerous theories and ways in which to bring theories into your social work practice. Remember that this is the start of your theoretical framework; begin small and seek to develop a depth of understanding of the theories you identify. The framework you develop now is just a beginning of your work and does not have to be the final framework you will use in your practice. Just as theories are dynamic and grow and develop, so your own theoretical framework will grow and develop over time through your professional practice and with continuing professional development.

Discussion Questions

1. Have you heard social workers or other practitioners talk about the use of theory in their practice? Do they support having a theoretical framework, and can they identify the one they use? Or do they prefer to make practice decisions based on their personal experiences or an eclectic use of theory? Give examples of each of these.
2. Working with other students, share your responses and categorizing decisions to Activity and Reflection 3 and how each of you organized the theories. Discuss why you put the theories in particular categories. Focus on theories some people were not sure how to categorize and on differences of opinion about where theories best fit. Explain your thinking to each other and try to agree on where the theories fit best.
3. What are the key differences between grand theories and practice theories? List some grand theories and some practice theories. Which grand theories best fit with which practice theories? Share your thoughts with others; where you disagree with each other, explain your thinking and try to agree on the best fit. Why do you need both grand and practice theories in your theoretical framework?
4. Choose a topic or social issue, such as working with a client with addictions, or a client experiencing racism. First work from a casework or personal change theoretical perspective and come up with a list of six to eight questions that you would ask of the client. Second, work from a structural change perspective and identify another list of six to eight questions you would ask the client. How and why are these questions different from each other? Are there any questions that overlap with both approaches (i.e. can the same question be asked with either approach)? Why or why not? Discuss how one’s theoretical framework guides the choice of questions you use with a client.
5. Share your draft theoretical framework for practice with other students. Discuss why each of you have chosen your particular theories and framework. How does your framework influence or speak to the type of practice you want to do? How do people with different frameworks complement each other? How much room is there for different frameworks across the social work profession, and is there a point at which the differences could be problematic?

Resources

Lary, B. (Producer), & Lary, B. (Director). (2005). Theories in social work practice. [Video]. Promedion.

Dean A. (2017, May 18). Counseling theory vs. techniques [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3yBPuf46Jo

The video Counseling Theory vs. Techniques helps explain how to incorporate practice theories or techniques from various theories into your overall theoretical orientation or framework (three minutes long).

Mullaly, B. & Dupre, M. (2019). Chapter 1: The social work vision. In The new structural social work: Ideology, theory, and practice. Oxford University Press.

References

Baines, D. (2000). Everyday practices of race, class and gender: Struggles, skills and radical social work. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 11(2), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1300/J059v11n02_02

———. (2003). Race, class, and gender in everyday talk of social workers: The ways we limit the possibilities for radical practice. In W. Shera (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on anti-oppressive practice (pp. 43–64). Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.

Campbell, C. (2003a). Anti-oppressive theory and practice as the organizing theme for social work education: The case in favour. Canadian Social Work Review, 20(1), 121–125. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41670001

———. (2003b). Struggling for congruency: Principles and practices of anti-oppressive social work pedagogy. National Library of Canada, Ottawa. https://research.library.mun.ca/10259/

Carniol, B. (1992). Structural social work: Maurice Moreau’s challenge to social work practice. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 3(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1300/J059v03n01_01

———. (2005). Case critical: Social services and social justice in Canada. (5th ed.). Between the Lines.

Canadian Association of Social Work Education. (2014). Standards for accreditation. https://caswe-acfts.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/CASWE-ACFTS.Standards-11-2014-1.pdf

Finkel, A. (2006). Social policy and practice in Canada: A history. Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

Fook, J. (1993). Radical casework: A theory of practice. Allen & Unwin Pty. Ltd.

Fook, J. (2002). Social work: Critical theory and practice. Sage Publications.

Guest, D. T. (2006). Saving for a rainy day: Social security in late nineteenth century and early twentieth-century Canada. In R. B. Blake and J. A. Keshen (Eds.) Social fabric or patchwork quilt: The development of social policy in Canada (pp. 25–44). Broadview Press.

Hammond, R., Cheney, P., & Pearsey, R. (2020). Introduction to sociology. http://www.freesociologybooks.com

Hick, S. (2002). Social work in Canada: An introduction. Thompson Educational Publishing, Inc.

Lundy, C. (2011). Social work and social justice: A structural approach to practice (2nd ed.). Broadview Press.

Marchant, H. (1986). Gender, systems thinking and radical social work. In H. Marchant and B. Wearing (Eds.), Gender reclaimed: Women in social work (pp. 14–32). Hale & Iremonger.

Marchant, H., & Wearing, B. (1986). Gender reclaimed: Women in social work. Hale & Iremonger.

Mullaly, B. (2007). The new structural social work (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Mullaly, B. & Dupré, M. (2019). The new structural social work (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Peters, H. (2010). Situating practitioners’ experiences in a model of theory-practice integration. In S. F. Hick, H. I. Peters, T. Corner, and T. London (Eds.), Structural social work in action: Examples from practice (pp. 39-57). Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.

Prochaska, J.O., DiClemente, C.C., and Norcross, J.C. (1992). In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychology, 47(9), 1102–14. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/10248-026

Prochaska, J.O. and DiClemente, C.C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390–5. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-006X.51.3.390

Reynolds, B.C. (1963). An uncharted journey: Fifty years of growth in social work. The Citadel Press.