What do you think?
Rate this book
Complexity and Social Work
Being socially competent is essential in late modern society. We expect people to find their own accommodation, partner, job, community and lifestyle and struggle to find answers for those who are not able or do not have the opportunity to achieve these things. By placing social complexity, social vulnerability and social efficacy within a framework of social policy and social practice, Complexity and Social Work argues that growing social complexity excludes more and more citizens from social participation. The book starts with exploring complexity, super-diversity, vulnerability and social efficacy. From there the book deals with the discourses of social policy, social work and social work research, pledging for social policy aiming at desired outcomes, for generic contextual social work, and for a research practice that recognises practical wisdom. Aimed at final year undergraduates, postgraduates, professionals, trainers and lecturers involved in social work, social policy, social care, mental health and allied fields who are committed to treating socially vulnerable people with respect and acceptance, this book, the first of its kind, offers new perspectives on social complexity for practice, theory and research in human services.
172 pages, Hardcover
Published October 10, 2017
6 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
September 25, 2024
This book is of interest to all sorts of professionals who find themselves working on diffuse, slippery problems. Social work is just one branch of public service that is undergoing paradigmatic change. This particular profession understands that it has to move away from solving and treating neatly labeled ‘disorders’ to supporting citizens in dealing with a much wider range of social vulnerabilities and forms of disfunctioning. These forms of social complexity manifest themselves as a result of the demands and expectations typical for a late modern society, characterized by growing differentiation, weaker embedment, and a lack of direction. In parallel, the welfare state is retooling itself to a ‘participation society’ which shifts responsibility to cater for societal demands from the state to the combined efforts of markets, local authorities and civil society actors, including individual citizens. Human and social rights are still endorsed, but conditionally. Individuals must meet a number of obligations to qualify for access to these rights.
So how to shape a sensible practice of social work in this complexity?
The argument revolves around the notion of ‘social efficacy’, the ability to cope with daily life and to participate in society. This form of efficacy is the result of a person’s innate capacity and of his/her social environment. Van Ewijk explores social efficacy through a range of theoretical lenses - including Antonovsky’s Salutogenesis and the Sen/Nussbaum Capability Theory - that blend dispositional and contextual elements. Next to social functioning is also professional functioning grounded in distinctive forms of efficacy. Donald Schon’s notions of ‘reflective practitionership’ and ‘artistry’ form the basis for an ethos of ‘normative professionalisation’ that infuses practice with a blend of technical, moral and aesthetic elements.
These notions of efficacy do not offer blueprints but help professional problem solvers to make sense of contemporary social complexity and to reflect on the orientation of their own practice in this multidimensional field.
Van Ewijk eventually comes to characterize the professional ethos of a complexity-sensitive social worker as follows: these are workers 1) who believe in their profession, 2) who understand and accept ‘activation’ and ‘embedment’ of their clients as core assignments, 3) who know and are able to apply the social work body of knowledge, 4) who are both social artists and social architects with personal social efficacy and competences endorsed by organisations of excellence, 5) who are embedded in the context of their people, and 6) who work with social justice as the permanent moral horizon providing both inspiration and direction.
Follows a discussion on how this kind of practice has to position itself vis-à-vis the dominant framework of Evidence-based Practice (EBP). Here the author argues for a weak interpretation of EBP that moderates the demand for hard evidence and stresses the normative dimension of social work.
The final chapter revolves around a fictitious case with an abrasive, socially vulnerable middle-aged man and a young female social worker as protagonists. The story allows to bring many of the books core messages into relief. Social work risks to appear as ungratifying because of all the friction embedded in the professional’s environment. “The art is to change the feeling of simply carrying on into the belief of slowly heading towards a certain direction.” Van Ewijk suggests that five core elements or activities need to be in place to support professionals’ resilience: connecting knowledge, accepting vulnerability, mentoring and socializing, constructing anchors and unraveling complexity. The author’s concluding message: “I am convinced that thinking in terms of liveability instead of solving and healing, and a lighter form of support through acceptance, anchoring and connecting instead of intensive treatment, is what will lead to lasting solutions with better social and economic impacts. This direction should form the essence and challenge of social work.”
Again, I think this book has much to offer to professionals of all sorts. First, because they are often operating as part of heterogeneous, self-steering teams: micro-cosmoses that mirror the larger ‘place-seeking society’ of which they are part and in which social differences and vulnerabilities are played out. Handling these social dynamics requires skills and sensitivities not unlike those discussed in this book. In addition, the generic character of social challenges – person-bound, context-sensitive, value-laden, at the intersection of disciplines, resource-constrained – applies to many other fields of professional activity. Therefore, the ideal of reflective practitionership as advocated in this book should gain wider currency.
I'm rating the book 3,5 rather than 4 stars because in my opinion the material might have been organised slightly more advantageously.
So how to shape a sensible practice of social work in this complexity?
The argument revolves around the notion of ‘social efficacy’, the ability to cope with daily life and to participate in society. This form of efficacy is the result of a person’s innate capacity and of his/her social environment. Van Ewijk explores social efficacy through a range of theoretical lenses - including Antonovsky’s Salutogenesis and the Sen/Nussbaum Capability Theory - that blend dispositional and contextual elements. Next to social functioning is also professional functioning grounded in distinctive forms of efficacy. Donald Schon’s notions of ‘reflective practitionership’ and ‘artistry’ form the basis for an ethos of ‘normative professionalisation’ that infuses practice with a blend of technical, moral and aesthetic elements.
These notions of efficacy do not offer blueprints but help professional problem solvers to make sense of contemporary social complexity and to reflect on the orientation of their own practice in this multidimensional field.
Van Ewijk eventually comes to characterize the professional ethos of a complexity-sensitive social worker as follows: these are workers 1) who believe in their profession, 2) who understand and accept ‘activation’ and ‘embedment’ of their clients as core assignments, 3) who know and are able to apply the social work body of knowledge, 4) who are both social artists and social architects with personal social efficacy and competences endorsed by organisations of excellence, 5) who are embedded in the context of their people, and 6) who work with social justice as the permanent moral horizon providing both inspiration and direction.
Follows a discussion on how this kind of practice has to position itself vis-à-vis the dominant framework of Evidence-based Practice (EBP). Here the author argues for a weak interpretation of EBP that moderates the demand for hard evidence and stresses the normative dimension of social work.
The final chapter revolves around a fictitious case with an abrasive, socially vulnerable middle-aged man and a young female social worker as protagonists. The story allows to bring many of the books core messages into relief. Social work risks to appear as ungratifying because of all the friction embedded in the professional’s environment. “The art is to change the feeling of simply carrying on into the belief of slowly heading towards a certain direction.” Van Ewijk suggests that five core elements or activities need to be in place to support professionals’ resilience: connecting knowledge, accepting vulnerability, mentoring and socializing, constructing anchors and unraveling complexity. The author’s concluding message: “I am convinced that thinking in terms of liveability instead of solving and healing, and a lighter form of support through acceptance, anchoring and connecting instead of intensive treatment, is what will lead to lasting solutions with better social and economic impacts. This direction should form the essence and challenge of social work.”
Again, I think this book has much to offer to professionals of all sorts. First, because they are often operating as part of heterogeneous, self-steering teams: micro-cosmoses that mirror the larger ‘place-seeking society’ of which they are part and in which social differences and vulnerabilities are played out. Handling these social dynamics requires skills and sensitivities not unlike those discussed in this book. In addition, the generic character of social challenges – person-bound, context-sensitive, value-laden, at the intersection of disciplines, resource-constrained – applies to many other fields of professional activity. Therefore, the ideal of reflective practitionership as advocated in this book should gain wider currency.
I'm rating the book 3,5 rather than 4 stars because in my opinion the material might have been organised slightly more advantageously.
Displaying 1 of 1 review