Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T15:33:10.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Structure of Social Casework and Behavioural Change*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

Nina Toren
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The casework method practised in social work is assessed from a sociological-structural perspective. Social workers are viewed as agents of social control who wield power and authority in order to change their clients' attitudes and behaviour. It is argued that the main weaknesses of casework as a technique for personal change lie in its dyadic structure and isolation from the client's real-life environment. These characteristics impede the operation of the basic processes through which control and influence are generally accepted. It is proposed to substitute small groups of clients for the one-to-one casework setting, to link the treatment situation to real-life experiences, and to emphasize learning processes. It is believed that this restructuring of the worker-client encounter will increase the effectiveness of social work therapeutic intervention.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , October 1974 , pp. 341 - 352
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Segal, Steven P., ‘Research on the outcomes of social work therapeutic interventions: a review of the literature’, Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 13, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Briar, Scott, ‘The casework predicament’, Social Work, 13, p. 6. 1968.Google Scholar

3 Miller, Henry, ‘Value dilemmas in social casework’, Social Work, 13, 1968Google Scholar, and Rein, Martin, ‘Social work in search of a radical profession’, Social Work, 15, 1970.Google Scholar

4 Cloward, Richard A. and Piven, Frances F., ‘A strategy to end poverty’, The Nation, 202, 1966.Google Scholar

5 Merton, Robert K., ‘Social structure and anomie’, 1957, pp. 125–49 in: Merton, Robert, Social Theory and Social Structure, New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar

6 Toren, Nina, Social Work: The Case of a Semi-Profession, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1972.Google Scholar

7 Perlmann, Helen H., ‘Social casework’, in Lurie, Henry L. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Social Work, New York: National Association of Social Workers, p. 705, 1965.Google Scholar

8 Biestek, Felix P., ‘An analysis of the casework relationship’, Social Casework, 35, 1957, p. 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Greenwood, Ernest, ‘Social science and social work: a theory of their relationship’, Social Service Review, 29, 1955CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Taylor, Robert K., ‘The social control function in casework’, Social Casework, 1, 1958Google Scholar; and Studt, Elliott, ‘Worker client authority relationships in social work’, Social Work, 4, 1959.Google Scholar

10 Etzioni, Amitai, A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations, New York: The Free Press, 1961Google Scholar; similar typologies of power may be found in French, John R. P. Jr. and Raven, Bertram, ‘The bases of social power’, in Cartwright, Dorwin (ed.), Studies in Social Power, Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1959Google Scholar; Rosenberg, Morris and Pearlin, Leonard I., ‘Power orientations in the mental hospital’, Human Relations, 15, 1962CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and in Parsons, Talcott, ‘On the concept of influence’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 27, 1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Weber, Max, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (Henderson, A. M. and Parsons, Talcott, trans. and eds), New York: Oxford University Press, 1947.Google Scholar

12 Etzioni, , op. cit.Google Scholar

13 Lewin, Kurt and Grabbe, Paul, ‘Conduct, knowledge and acceptance of new values’, Journal of Social Issues, 1, 1945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Cartwright, Dorwin and Zander, Alvin, Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, New York: Harper and Row (3rd ed.), 1968Google Scholar; Thibaut, John W. and Kelley, Harold H., The Social Psychology of Groups, New York: Wiley, 1959Google Scholar; and Hopkins, Terence K., The Exercise of Influence in Small Groups, New Jersey: The Bedminster Press, 1964.Google Scholar

15 Levinger, George, ‘Continuance in casework and other helping relationships: a review of current research’, Social Work, 5, 1960.Google Scholar

16 Kahn, Robert L. and Katz, Daniel, ‘Social work and organizational change’, The Social Welfare Forum, New York: Columbia University Press, 1965, pp. 166–7Google Scholar. Reprinted by permission of the National Conference on Social Welfare.

17 Festinger, Leon, Schachter, Stanley and Back, Kurt, Social Pressures in Informal Groups, California: Stanford University Press, 1950.Google Scholar

18 Op. cit.

19 Bradford, L. P., Gibb, J. R. and Benne, K. D. (eds), T-Group Theory and Laboratory Methods, New York: Wiley, 1964Google Scholar; Schein, Edgar H. and Bennis, Warren G. (eds), Personal and Organizational Change Through Group Methods: The Laboratory Approach, New York: Wiley, 1965.Google Scholar

20 Lewin, Kurt, Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers (ed. Cartwright, Dorwin), New York: Harper and Row, 1961.Google Scholar

21 Berkowitz, Leonard, ‘Liking for the group and the perceived merit of the group's behavior’, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 54, 1957.Google Scholar

22 Konopka, Gisela, Social Group Work: A Helping Process, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1963.Google Scholar

23 Meyer, Henry J., Borgatta, Edgar F. and Jones, Wyatt C., Girls at Vocational High: An Experiment in Social Work Intervention, New York: Russel Sage Foundation, 1965, p. 204.Google Scholar