This article was downloaded by:

On: 5 November 2010

Access details: Access Details: Free Access
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Australian Social Work

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t725304176

Developing Complementarity between Generic and Methods Approaches

to Social Work Practice An Exploration of Some Problems in Curriculum
Design.
Richard J. Roberts; Diane M. Zulfacar

To cite this Article Roberts, Richard J. and Zulfacar, Diane M.(1986) 'Developing Complementarity between Generic and
Methods Approaches to Social Work Practice An Exploration of Some Problems in Curriculum Design.', Australian
Social Work, 39: 4, 27 — 34
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/03124078608549941
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03124078608549941

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 of the artificial boundaries drawn by
6
the methods where the danger
existed of having the methods
Developing Complementarity between preference of the practitioner
Generic and Methods Approaches to determine both the nature and
treatment of the problem. Likewise a
Social Work Practice social worker educated primarily
within the mode of a particular
An Exploration of Some Problems in Curriculum agency setting was in danger of
Design. imposing existing boundaries of
agency function and practitioner
RICHARD J. ROBERTS* roles. This could prematurely
DIANE M. ZULFACAR* constrain the scope of assessment
and subsequent intervention.
This article explores some of the problems associated with developing social
1
work practice curriculum based upon generic and methods approaches. The (2) Most generic frameworks of
article explores important dynamics which influenced the design of the social practice are described in texts
work practice curriculum during the years 1978 to 1982 at the School of Social claiming their usefulness for the
7

Work, University of New South Wales. A critique of generic and methods beginning student . These texts often
approaches as a basis for curriculum design is developed. It is concluded that set out to link the explicated
because of the limitations of either one of these approaches alone, they need to conceptual framework to the
be used in a complementary way. This position was first asserted by Harriett pragmatics of practice, to link class
Bartlett in 1970, however subsequent literature gives no indication of this room teaching to teaching in the
8

having been done up until now. field , and to take a 'strength-

Downloaded At: 14:14 5 November 2010

INTRODUCTION
The School of Social Work,
University of New South Wales,
offers a four year full time
programme for the degree of
Bachelor of Social Work . A 2
summary of the content of the first
two years of the practice sequence
between the years 1978 and 1982 is
provided in Table 1. In 1978 and
1979 the first two years were based
upon a generic perspective alone, but
from 1980, the second year was
revised to provide an introduction to
each of the four orthodox methods
3
of practice . The process that led
from antagonism to an eventual
synthesis of generic and methods
perspectives in our School's
curriculum design is described. It
should be noted that the authors
held major responsibility for the
subjects which are described and
critiqued in this paper. It should be
*Both authors are Lecturers in the
School of Social Work, University of
noted as well, that during this
period, students continued to study
selected methods in their final year.
However the content and process of
this final practice year are not dealt
with in this paper.
T H E FIRST YEAR OF T H E
PRACTICE S E Q U E N C E
In 1978 the School decided to
expand its teaching of generic
4
approaches and to test and develop
further practice models based upon
emerging 'generic theory.'
The Strengths in using 'Generic
Theory' for Curriculum Design
(1) It introduced students to a
perspective of practice which was
neither bound to orthodox methods
parameters nor fields or settings of
practice. This allowed students to be
presented with the widest possible
range of aetiology and remedies
when making assessments,
considering points for intervention,
and deciding upon technologies of
3
oriented' or 'problem-solving'
approach' in which pathology is not
necessarily seen to be within the
person or group requesting
10
assistance .
(3) The authors claim their
frameworks to be useful devices for
linking the various socio-behavioural
theories ('foundation theories' or
'theories for practice') to a 'practice
11
theory' . The use of an 'ecological
12
perspective' for example, requires
the student to link the theories
studied in other subjects to the
modus operandi of social work
practice when assessing and
intervening. It is noted by Bartlett
and some subsequent writers, that
unless theories for practice are
clearly linked to a social work frame
of reference, then there is the danger
of social work being skewed in the
direction of another discipline and
13
hence losing its own identity .
(4) The frameworks provide tools for
students to differentiate clearly the
various systems with which they
work, for example, 'client', 'agency',
'action', 'target'," 'problem identi­
15
fication', and 'professional' . Such a
conceptualisation helps in the
defining of 'client' and 'non-client'
systems. It enables a differentiation

New South Wales. They are both practice to meet the goals set. For between 'client' and 'target' whereby
Ph.D. students in that School. some time writers had been critical the person or group requesting

Australian Social Work December, 1986, Vol. 39, No.4 27


assistance is not necessarily the point
where change is required in order to
meet the goals of intervention. It
assists in the identification of the
various parts of the action system,
and encourages an assessment of the
agency itself in terms of how it is
able to alleviate or indeed how it
may be causing or exacerbating the
problem . 17
(5) Most frameworks, at least in their
rhetoric, claim to be concerned with
'public issues' as well as the 'private
troubles' of individual clients". The
paradigm developed by Middleman
19
and Goldberg is a clear example of
the 'equality of attention' required
16
for both private troubles and public
issues as well as the importance of
work both with clients and work
20
with others on behalf of clients .
Targets for change could thus
include not only clients but other
individuals of significance to the
clients, representatives of
organisations having control over
resources, agency administrators
with responsibility for deciding and
interpreting policy and so on.
(6) Some frameworks provide a
repertoire of skills which are
considered necessary for a wide
range of practice. One writer
attempted to develop a concept of
21
'generic skills.' The range of skills
required to intervene in a variety of
systems goes far beyond skills
considered necessary to bring about
changes through the traditional
'helping' (usually 'consensual')
r e l a t i o n s h i p of worker and
individual client. In addition to the
orthodox skills of the 'helping
22
relationship' students are required
to learn a repertoire of skills to deal

TABLE 1
S U M M A R Y O F C O N T E N T S O F B.S.W. P R A C T I C E CURRICULUM
1978-1982

SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE IA SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE IIA

Downloaded At: 14:14 5 November 2010

1978 Session 1 Session 1

Generic themes covering historical context of
practice, primary & secondary settings,
practice boundaries, knowledge & values, self-
awareness, effective communication skills
(verbal, non-verbal & written).
(1 hr lecture, 2hrs skills lab., 1 hr seminar).
Knowledge and skills of roles of supporter,
adviser, therapist, caretaker, researcher,
administrator, consultant, enabler, advocate,
broker, mediator, educator, co-ordinator.
(2hrs lecture; plus time scheduled for Session
2 Taskforce preparation).

Session 2
General tasks of assessing, planning,
intervening, re-evaluation, termination.
Introduction to 5 frameworks (Bartlett, Baker,
Pincus & Minahan, Loewenberg, Compton &
Galaway).
(1 hr lecture, 1'/zhrs seminar, 1 hr/fortnight
skills).
1979 Similar to 1 9 7 8 , but frameworks reduced to 4
(overview of 2, 2 in detail).
1980 "Similar to 1 9 7 8 but less time on generic
themes & more time on effective
communication skills, & task of assessing.
Frameworks reduced to 3 : Baker, Compton &
Galaway, and Pincus & Minahan.
1981 Similar to 1 9 8 0 . Instead of study of
frameworks in toto, selected concepts from
Baker, Pincus & Minahan, Compton &
Galaway, & Middleman & Goldberg.
1982 Similar to 1 9 8 1 .
Session 2
Students presented reports of "taskforce"
(self-learning groups). Topics could be on any
aspect of practice, either focussed on
particular agency or setting, selected social
problem, or application of a technique or
model.
(2hr lecture/workshop).
Similar to 1 9 7 8 .
Introduction to casework, group work,
community work, and administration. Each
method studied in terms of beginning, middle,
and ending phases. No linkage with generic
perspectives.
Methods presented as complementary to
generic perspectives. Methods taught not as
discrete but each viewed in terms of its
contribution to social work practice as a
whole. In addition, selected skills taught.
Examination of ideological underpinnings of
practice.
Similar to 1 9 8 1 .

28 Australian Social Work December, 1986, Vol. 39, No.4

 with non-clients at both micro and
macro levels involving not only
consensual but also bargaining and
23
conflict relationships . Such skills
are necessary in acting as an
advocate or mediator for a client or
24
client group . As well as a range of
interpersonal skills, we believe a
repertoire of skills relating to
effective mass communication,
working in teams, working in formal
meetings, inter alia, follow by
implication from the 'broad canvas'
of possible roles and tasks for the
worker.
Problems in using 'Generic Theory'
for Curriculum Design
While the reasons stated above
provide a sound basis for designing
curriculum using generic
approaches, the pragmatics of
Downloaded At: 14:14 5 November 2010
teaching this material to under­
graduate students gave rise to our
recognition of a number of
important issues. Our experience led
to modifications in the way material
was taught and this is reflected in
Table 1. The most significant issues
leading to curriculum modifications
were as follows:
(1) Conceptual appreciation of the
practice theory versus utility for
practice
This centred around the need to
consider: (a) the frameworks as
developments of practice theory and
the contributions of this class of
writing to practice, and (b) how the
frameworks, as a whole or in part,
could be used in practice.
The number of frameworks to
be studied caused considerable
consternation. The problem of
deciding how many frameworks to
study, and which ones, was made
difficult by the fact that each
framework had its own strengths
and weaknesses. No one framework
was considered adequate to be
studied alone, thus the selection was
based partly on the complementarity
of different generic frameworks and
their utility for practice. Initially five
25
frameworks were prescribed with
the expectation that students would
have a working knowledge of the
five and a more detailed knowledge
of two.
In retrospect this was a con­
ceptual overload for students taking
their first course in practice. This
difficulty was exacerbated by the
high level of generality and
abstraction of the frameworks.
Teaching proceeded along a
deductive mode 26
in order to
establish a conceptual map of
practice.
Over time the number of
frameworks prescribed for study was
reduced to a point where only the
'useful parts' of several frameworks
were examined and where no
detailed knowledge or critique of any
one framework was required. This
modification was justified because of
the difficulties students had in
handling such a level of conceptual­
isation at this stage of the course,
and the reported difficulties in
attempting to apply this broad
approach to the first field
27
placement .
Two major difficulties with this
change were noted. Firstly, the
justification of the selection of'parts'
of frameworks considered 'useful'
was problematic. Secondly, to date
no systematic study has been made
of this class of writing and the
connections these frameworks have
28
with each other . A more serious
difficulty was the limited critique
which could be made of any one
framework when it was not being
examined in toto.
(2) Conceptual understanding
versus skills development
An issue arose in deciding the
balance of time to be spent on (a)
developing theoretical and
conceptual understanding, and (b)
developing basic skills to apply the
f r a m e w o r k s , p a r t i c u l a r l y in
preparing students for their first field
placement. A related problem was
the selection of particular skills to be
taught. The broad parameters set by
these frameworks required students
to learn both micro skills of working
with individuals and small groups as
well as macro skills of intervention
Australian Social Work
with large groups, communities, and
organisations.
How many of these skills could
be effectively taught given the time
constraints was a topic of constant
debate. The question was posed as to
whether s t u d e n t s should be
introduced to a broad range of skills
at a relatively superficial level or
allowed to consolidate and develop
confidence in performing a selected
number. A further component in the
debate was a demarcation matter,
viz. who should take primary
responsibility for skills development:
class teachers or field instructors?
(3) Deductive versus Inductive
teaching methodologies
The generic approaches were
presented as over-arching conceptual
frameworks and were thus suitable
29
for deductive use . The need to
complement deductive with
inductive teaching strategies became
increasingly apparent because, (a)
this was thefirst subject of a practice
sequence, (b) students were mainly
young and without employment
50
experience , (c) the frameworks con­
ceptualised social work practice at a
high order of generality. This was
most required when dealing with the
task of assessing, planning and
intervening. Without linking these
general tasks to specific examples
and without linking them to specific
social contexts (both socio-political
as well as agency), then the tasks
were seen as far too abstract and use
in practice difficult, if not
impossible.
(4) Theories for Practice and
Practice Theory
As noted previously these
frameworks claimed to link together
a range of theories from the socio-
behavioural sciences in order to
inform the practitioner how to link
this to social work's own purposes
and technologies. The biopsycho-
social model is one such example".
Given the need for social work
practice to draw on a range of
relevant underpinning theory, such a
model is useful. However in terms of
theory construction such attempts
December, 1986, Vol. 39, No.4 29
 are very crude because while they
postulate the relevance of a range of
theory, they do not indicate how the
practitioner can selectively use this
theory. Such models (as the bio-
psychosocial model) do not address
the problems of theory compatibility
where a range of theory is invoked,
they have no predictive capacity,
and have very little capability of
prescription. In other words the user
has to make his or her own selection
of theory, as no explicit criteria
relating to social work purposes is
provided. The choice is often seen
only in terms of eclecticism, or as
one writer describes it the 'super­
32
market' principle . -
Some frameworks invoke a
crude form of social systems
33
analysis . However, this form of
analysis provides no criteria for
choice for substantive theory
Downloaded At: 14:14 5 November 2010
selection, no criteria for choice of
which variables on a case are more
important than others (after
partialisation), and no prediction
concerning likely outcomes. While
social systems analysis is widely used
in social work practice, its benefit to
34
social work is still being debated. .
The use of generic frameworks
and social systems analysis increases
the number of variables to be taken
into account. While this increases
the social worker's options it does
make the analysis more complex .
For the experienced practitioner this
can be handled by an arbitrary
limitation of the variables (both in
terms of case material and possible
theories of explanation) resulting
from his or her own practice and
personal ideologies, personal biasses
relating to the purposes of social
work, agency opportunities and
constraints, or merely selective
perception or convenience. The
problem however in our programme,
was that the student had little or no
experience in handling social work
problems. The student had no
practice experience on which to rely.
How does resorting to practice
theory help? This merely says choose
variables which are 'relevant',
choose theories that are more likely
to achieve the goals than others.
30 Australian Social Work
How does the student know this?
T h u s while the generic
approaches encourage the student to
look further and further afield for
cause and effect, they may not
provide the necessary conceptual
tools or the technology for pre­
scribing a set of directions which
could be followed rationally in order
to achieve particular goals. We
believe that such a stage of practice
theory development is some time in
the future.
(5) Nomenclature
When the practice curriculum
was originally designed it was
believed that there existed a class of
frameworks with the same purpose
even if this was operationalised in
different ways. One of the problems
however was the confusion in the
nomenclature used. Such terms as
generic, unitary, generalise
ecological, systems, common base,
integrated, are to be found in the
literature. Some writers treat the
nomenclature as synonymous .
However on face value the words
denote different meanings. The word
unitary, for example, is particularly
problematic because it conjures up
notions of unity, oneness, consensus,
hegemony. Pincus and Minahan
have been accused of postulating
1
their approach as a supra-methotf a
33
position they emphatically reject .
This confusion of nomenclature has
led to confusion in terms of
expectations. Because no systematic
analysis has been made of these
frameworks to date, one does not
really know how much the
confusion rests w i t h the
nomenclature alone, and how much
rests with the substantive content of
the frameworks.
When the results of such
analysis are available, the use of
these frameworks as a class might be
seen as unjustified if substantial
differences emerge between them.
(6) Lack of explicit ideology
Few of the frameworks deal
explicitly with the ideology of
practice. This proves a weakness in
assessing each framework in its own
December, 1986, Vol. 39, No.4
right as well as in attempting to use
each in practice. If social work has
indeed to deal with the interface of
person and environment then
substantial treatment of the social
context of practice is imperative. In
order to give direction to the
technologies of practice, the
purposes of practice need developing
and justifying and these, of
necessity, involve a treatment of the
sociological and ideological context
of social problems.
The omission of most frame­
works to deal with this issue has led
to criticisms of their being 'vacuous',
'ideologically conservative', and
3
'casework recycled.' '
While other practice
frameworks neglect these questions,
these omissions are particularly
serious with regard to the generic
approaches, because they do claim to
link the individual person and
environment, the private and the
public. It is not possible to present a
technology as if it was neutral. A
36
profession which claims to be
involved in social change, in the
distribution and redistribution of
resources, and access to power over
decision making, cannot prescribe a
means without considering a justi­
fication for a particular end.
In terms of curriculum these
issues were introduced while making
38
a critique of the frameworks, either
individually or collectively. Such a
critique was made difficult by the
students' lack of knowledge about
other (non generic) approaches to
social work. It was often reported by
practitioners that the generic
approaches made sense to them
having already acquired a know­
ledge of other (usually methods)
approaches. It was very difficult for
students to appreciate the relative
strengths and weaknesses in the
absence of comparative data. The
dilemma in terms of curriculum
design was to present a detailed
critique and hence 'overload' the
content of the subject; or utilise
'useful' parts of frameworks without
a more detailed critique. The trend
was to the latter given a mounting
pressure from students and field
 instructors for more 'skills' and
'techniques' rather than 'theory'.
(7) Application of generic
frameworks in the field
Use of generic frameworks is
not commonplace in Australia at the
present time and therefore few
opportunities exist for students to
observe and participate in this form
of p r a c t i c e . Most typically
practitioners align themselves with
one or more of the orthodox
methods of practice having adapted
it to suit a specific setting. A
common pattern of practice centres
on the use of selected socio-
behavioural theory (e.g. a psycho-
dynamic approach) or a selected
specialisation within social work (e.g.
a family therapy). Other
specialisations are in terms of
agency, e.g. hospital social work,
Downloaded At: 14:14 5 November 2010
social work in local government.
With these 'specialisations' most
practitioners, as field instructors,
expect students to develop an
understanding of and skills related to
that specialised form of practice.
Most students, especially in the early
stages of a practice sequence, find it
difficult to 'bridge the gap' between
specialised modes of practice: to link
micro and macro skills; to link
clinical practice with its social
context.
Given that this practice subject
coincided with the student's first
field placement, considerable dis­
sonance occurred where the student
had been prepared with a broad
range of skills, albeit at a
rudimentary level, and where the
field instructor .expected a higher
level of consolidation in a specialised
area of practice.
A t t e m p t s were made to
acquaint field instructors with the
basic tenets of these 'new'
approaches and the educational
objectives. However these attempts
were severely hampered because of
the organisational arrangements
within the School which minimised
contact between classroom teachers,
the Field Education Unit within the
School, and with agency instructors
responsible for student supervision.
T H E S E C O N D YEAR OF
T H E PRACTICE S E Q U E N C E
Generic approaches and Methods
as antagonistic
In 1978 and 1979 the second
year of the practice sequence further
developed a generic approach and
this was intended as preparation for
a methods specialisation in the final
year. From 1980 the second year
was changed to include an
introduction to each of the four
orthodox methods or practice. A
review of the reasons for this change
highlights some of the strengths and
weaknesses of both generic and
methods approaches.
(1) Early reliance on Role
Conceptualisation of Practice
(1978-79)
Initially the content of the
second year was based upon a role
conceptualisation of social work
practice. More specifically, the
content was based on Baker's Multi-
role Practitioner Model". Basically
the model sets out thirteen roles
('supporter', 'adviser', 'therapist',
'care-taker', 'researcher', 'adminis­
trator', 'consultant', 'enabler',
'advocate', 'broker', 'mediator',
'educator', 'coordinator') and eight
general tasks of practice (assessing,
planning, intervening, reevaluating,
recording, observing, listening,
interacting). Each one of these roles
was studied in turn and some skills
relevant to each role taught.
However this formulation of
practice can be challenged on a
number of grounds. The derivation
of the roles of practice forms part of
several conceptualisations of social
work practice. The number of roles
delineated vary from three to fifty
41
two . Writers are not explicit about
how these roles are formulated:
whether by empirical research or by
42
deductive reasoning . Such a
discrepancy in the number of roles
described makes the use of a role
c o n c e p t u a l i s a t i o n by itself
problematic in curriculum design.
While some practitioners have
reported the Multirole Practitioner
Model as a useful device for
Australian Social Work
planning and sometimes justifying
intervention, its own lack of justi­
fication in terms of methodology
renders it particularly difficult when
justifying curriculum content. One
of its substantive weaknesses is its
failure to link the roles of practice to
particular contexts. It is important
not only that a variety of social work
roles is acknowledged but that the
characteristics of each role are
described. To do this one must link
the roles to substantive theory, and
this will be influenced both by the
more global purposes and goals of
social work practice as well as the
influence of particular settings and
contexts of practice.
While Baker claims this model
43
must be linked to his generic base ,
this linkage is no more than nominal.
There is no explication on how each
of the roles is substantively linked to
the generic base. For example, it is
extremely difficult to apply the roles
of advocate or mediator outside of a
particular context. What criteria, for
example, does a practitioner use to
decide what or whose cause will be
advocated? The cause of one
potential client or client group may
well conflict with that of another.
Thus who becomes the client? In
order to make this decision one must
invoke an ideology. No assistance
will be found in this model in order
to link a role with a particular
purpose.
The roles in the Multirole
Practitioner model are described as if
the agency or social context are not
important. While Baker and other
writers maintain that more research
is needed on each of the roles in
44
themselves, we believe that the use
of any role conceptualisation in its
pesent form has very limited use
until more substantive links can be
made to specific contexts and
ideologies of practice.
(2) Subsequent replacement of
'Roles' by 'Methods' (1980)
Thus it was the difficulties
within the generic approaches in
g e n e r a l a n d the M u l t i r o l e
Practitioner Model in particular in
the second year which led to the
December, 1986, Vol. 39, No.4 31
 substantial revision of the second
year practice subject in 1980. In
addition, because a very broad range
of skills had been covered and not
linked specifically to any orthodox
approach, methods teachers in the
third practice year found it very
difficult to build their teaching upon
a basis which was foreign to their
previous experience.
The difficulty in accepting a
relatively new practice foundation in
the first two years and appreciating
what knowledge and skills students
had acquired, albeit in a different
form, cannot be divorced from the
politics in the school at the time. The
introduction of a 'new' (generic)
form of practice teaching in the first
two years seemed to threaten the
position of the methods 'specialists'
who had held substantial control of
practice teaching in the school prior
Downloaded At: 14:14 5 November 2010
to 1978. Claims were made by some
members of the 'methods faction'
that students were not being
adequately prepared for their
methods elective year.
The underlying conflicts
between the 'generic' and 'methods'
factions remained unaddressed and
unresolved and hence an antagonism
was implicit in the 1980 revision of
first and second year practice
subjects. In 1980 there was virtually
no linkage between the content of
the first and second year practice
curricula and hence students tended
to forget or put aside the learning
they had acquired in the first year.
There was no linkage between
generic and methods perspectives.
As the methods material carried into
the next year, the assumption was
often made that 'from now on' the
methods material is important, and
the earlier generic material is not.
(3) Barriers to synthesis
Our experience leads us to
believe it is essential that any study
of curriculum change take into
account not only the substantive
academic arguments but also the
45
'vested interests' of the protagonists
of the different positions, the power
structures, and the dynamics
32 Australian Social Work
operating within staff and student
politics.
It was our observation that
within the School the curriculum
was used as a vehicle for the
jockeying for power for various
members of staff. Some students
were easily drawn into this arena of
debate. In most forums in which
these issues were debated, it was our
observation that substantive and
rational argument was replaced by
the promotion of emotionally
charged presentations of viewpoints
and 'personalities'. While the
complexities of these aspects are not
developed further in this paper, to
omit their influence from the process
of curriculum change would be to
present a highly distorted picture
and one which suggested a solely
rational approach to curriculum
change.
Linked into these political con­
siderations, and used to advantage
by most factions from time to time,
was the lack of an explicitly
developed set of objectives for the
Bachelor of Social Work
programme. There has never been
agreement within the School about
the desired 'end products' of the
course: no specification of types and
levels of competence in knowledge
and skills; no agreement as to how
specialised a graduate of the course
is or should be. The closest that the
School came to such specification
was contained within very general
statements in the University
46
Handbook . In the absence of such
agreement, specific objectives were
left largely to individual lecturers co­
ordinating individual subjects. Most
often, staff factions tended to see
their positions as mutually exclusive
rather than as complementary in any
way.
Generic approaches and Methods
as Complementary
In 1981, the 'generic' rationale
of the first year and the 'methods'
rationale of the second year were
developed as complementary rather
than antagonistic. Bartlett's
December, 1986, Vol. 39, No.4
statement provided both impetus
and rationale for this:
What is now needed for the
profession's forward movement
is not to discard the method-
and-skill model as a whole, but
to carry over from it those
aspects that are contributing to
the strengths of social work and
to include them in a new
professional model. In this way,
the concept of the skilled
worker can take its proper place
within a comprehensive
concept of social work and its
practice. The method-and-skill
model needs greater breadth,
while the overall professional
4
model needs substance... '.
In 1981 concerted efforts were
made to integrate the material
taught in the first two years of the
practice sequence in such a way that
the content of the second year built
logically on the content of the first
year, and that these linkages were
made explicit to students. Essentially
this was done by (i) beginning the
second year with a review of the
major contributions of the generic
approaches, (ii) providing a rationale
for moving from generic to methods
material, and (iii) indicating the
potential for utilising both generic
and methods approaches in a
complementary fashion in practice.
A further significant change to the
second year practice subject was the
inclusion of material on ideology in
relation to practice.
A more detailed description of
each of these modifications follows:
(1) Review of the major contributions
of generic approaches
Students were encouraged to
see the utility of these approaches
within the context of a critique
which had been developed in the
first year. They were encouraged to
appreciate that no one theory or
conceptual framework was usually
adequate for practice, and that most
approaches had deficiencies. The
particular contributions of the
generic approaches were
emphasised, viz. their encourage­
ment of practitioners to assess
 situations in the broadest possible
way and to look for a broad range of
aetiology and points for
intervention; the linkage between
'private troubles' and 'public issues';
and the importance of work done
with clients as well as with others on
behalf of clients.
(2) Rationale for moving from
generic to methods material
Once a decision has been made
about where (what level) to
intervene, a social worker needs
specific knowledge and skills related
to how to intervene. It was
acknowledged that the conceptual­
isations of practice skills developed
by generic writers are too abstract
and general to be of immediate use
to undergraduate students. The
utility of orthodox methods theory
and skills was thus emphasised
Downloaded At: 14:14 5 November 2010
because of its more specific
delineation. For example students
were helped to consider a 'context'
for social work roles: 'supporting'
could be viewed as a generic skill,
but it was important to differentiate
'supporting' an individual client in
taking a difficult action in relation to
a significant personal relationship, in
contrast to 'supporting' a social
action group in its efforts to confront
a non-responsive local agency. The
application in practice of these
specific roles was now linked with a
range of supporting methods
literature.
(3) Potential complementarity of
generic and methods approaches
An important reason for
viewing generic and methods
approaches as complementary is that
there is insufficient time and
curriculum space to cover all aspects
of practice in the classroom.
Important choices have to be made
between breadth and depth in
curriculum design.
While it is unrealistic to expect
individual social workers to be
'expert' in all aspects of social work
practice, we believe that the
profession as a whole can be more
effective in fulfilling its purposes
when individual social workers
appreciate the links between their
contribution and the contributions
that can be made by their colleagues
with different areas of expertise.
Such an understanding of how the
'parts' fit together to form the
'whole' of social work practice is
facilitated by generic conceptual­
isations. It is in taking this broad
view that a social worker can decide
not only what he or she can do about
particular facets of a problem
situation (given his/her expertise and
agency mandate), but also what
additional aspects of the situation
warrant intervention by colleagues
with different expertise. Such an
awareness of the extent and
limitations of one's own expertise,
and that of other colleagues within
the profession, provides a basis for
forming linkages for the effective
utilisation of that collective
expertise.
A further requirement, if social
workers are to complement each
other's practice, is not only expertise
in one's own areas of specialisation,
but also basic knowledge of what
other specialisations encompass.
(Thus, for example, a caseworker
who is sensitive to the structural
s o c i e t a l p r e s s u r e s t h a t are
impingeing on his/her clients, needs
to have a basic understanding of
what community workers might be
able to do about such pressures.)
Such an understanding of the
complementarity between generic
and methods approaches led to a
n u m b e r of specific learning
objectives in the second year
curriculum. Thus by the end of the
second year of the practice sequence,
students were expected to have a
solid awareness of the knowledge
and skill base of each method and to
be aware of the commonalities and
differences between methods. As the
students then moved into method
specialisations of their own choice in
the final year, they did so with an
understanding of how their own
professional practice could be
complemented by the practice of
social work colleagues with other
types of expertise.
Australian Social Work
(4) Ideological underpinnings of
social work practice
It has already been pointed out
that while the generic models
encourage social workers to think
broadly about possible levels and
forms of intervention, they do so in
an ideological vacuum. In other
words, they may not consider
underlying systems of values, beliefs,
and assumptions that have a
profound influence on a social
worker's decision about where and
how to intervene in any given
practice situation. As students
prepare to make decisions about
which practice options they will
pursue from a wide range of pos­
sibilities, they require not only a
repertoire of relevant skills, and an
awareness of complementary skills
that other social workers may
possess, they also need some
understanding of the ideological
implications of decisions they make.
Thus it was considered that the
material on ideology was an
important addition to the methods
material in the second year. The
c o n t e n t included usages of
'ideology'; notions that social work
practice could be 'politically neutral'
were challenged; and in particular
students were made aware of the
debate within the social work
profession triggered by the 'radical'
writings of the 1970's". The
objective was not so much to
provide a recipe for deciding
amongst alternative possibilities for
intervention, but to help students
recognize the major positions of the
debate and to increase the likelihood
that, in making their own practice
decisions, they would do so on the
basis of a clear, explicit rationale.
CONCLUSIONS. A
BEGINNING?
Processes of developing social
work practice curricula and
associated problems are infrequently
presented for public scrutiny in
published form. By exposing both
the rational, historical, and the
interpersonal dynamics that have
December, 1986, Vol. 39, No.4 33
 operated in the development of one
School's practice curriculum, we
hope to stimulate public debate on
the issues raised.
We are aware from our
personal observations that similar
problems have been experienced in
many social work schools in the
United States of America and in the
United Kingdom. Unless more
articles like this one are published,
then curriculum design will remain
in the domain of 'private geometry'
of individual academics and Schools
of Social Work.
REFERENCES AND ENDNOTES
1 . For consistency the word 'generic' is used
throughout to refer to a class of writings variously
referred to as 'generic', 'unitary', 'integrated',
'generalisf, 'ecological', 'common base'. This class
of writings is representative of conceptual
frameworks developed by the following authors:
R. Baker, "Notes on a Conceptual Framework for
Unitary Social Work Practice". International Social
Downloaded At: 14:14 5 November 2010
Work, xiii (4), 1 9 8 0 , pp. 1 0 - 2 5 .
H . Bartlett, The Common Base of Social Work
Practice, N.A.S.W.. N.Y.. 1 9 7 0 .
P. Boas & J . Crawley, Explorations in Teaching
Generic Social Work Theory, P . I T . , Bundoora,
Australia, 1 9 7 5 .
B.R. Compton, & B. Gataway, Social Work
Processes, Dorsey, Illinois, 1 9 7 9 .
C.B. Germain & A. Gitterman, The Life Model of
Social Work Practice, Columbia University Press,
N.Y.. 1 9 8 0 .
H . Goldstein, Social Work Practice — A Unitary
Approach, University Southern California,
Columbia. 1 9 7 3 .
R.W. Klenk & R.M. Ryan, T h e Practice of Social
Work, Wadsworth. N.Y.. 1 9 7 4 .
F. Loewenberg. Fundamentals of Social
Intervention, Columbia U.P., N.Y., 1 9 7 7 .
R. Middleman & G. Goldberg, Social Service
Delivery — A Structural Approach to Social Work
Practice, Columbia U.P., N.Y., 1 9 7 4 .
A. Pincus & A. Minahan, Social Work Practice:
M o d e ! and Method, Itasca. Illinois. 1 9 7 3 .
M . Siporin, Introduction to Social Work Practice,
Macmillan. N.Y., 1 9 7 5 .
'Methods' refers to the four orthodox methods of
practice: casework, group work, community work,
and social work administration.
2. The B.S.W. programme is four years full time.
Between 1 9 7 8 and 1 9 8 2 social work practice was
taught in the second, third, and fourth years. In this
paper the practice subjects will be referred to as
34 Australian Social Work
first, second, and third practice subjects.
3. Casework, group work, community work, and
social work administration.
4 . Prior to 1 9 7 8 the School had used the Pincus &
Minahan text (op. cit.).
5. R.J. Roberts. "Some Implications of Unitary
Approaches to Social Work Practice for Curriculum
Design," Contemporary Social Work Education,
5(3), 1 9 8 2 , pp. 2 4 5 - 2 4 6 .
6. H. Bisno, "A Theoretical Framework for Teaching
Social Work Methods and Skills with Particular
Reference to Undergraduate Social Welfare
Education," Journal of Education for Social Work,
5(9), 1 9 6 9 , p.8.
7. See for example: F. Loewenberg, op. cit.; A.
Pincus & A. Minahan, op. cit.; B.R. Compton & B.
Galaway, op. cit.
8. F. Loewenberg, op. cit.
9. B.R. Compton & B. Galaway, op. cit.
10. A Pincus & A. Minahan, op. cit. p. 5 9 .
1 1 . R. Baker, "Building and Implementing Unitary
Social Work Practice: A Personal Account,"
Contemporary Social Work Education, 3(1),
1 9 8 0 , p. 2 6 .
1 2 . C.B. Germain & A. Gitterman. op. cit.
1 3 . H. Bartlett, op. cit. p. 7 1 .
14. A. Pincus & A. Minahan. op. cit. Ch. 3 .
15. B.R. Compton & B. Galaway, op. cit.
pp. 8 4 - 8 5 .
16. A Pincus & A. Minahan, op. cit. pp. 5 6 - 6 0 and
pp. 6 4 - 6 8 .
17. ibid. pp. 5 4 - 5 6 and pp. 6 4 - 6 8 .
18. W. Schwartz, "Private Troubles and Public
Issues: One Social Work Job or Two? Social
Welfare Forum, Columbia U.P., N.Y.. 1 9 6 9 .
W. Schwartz, "Between Client and System: the
Mediating Function" in R. Roberts and H. Northern
(eds.). Theories for Social Work with Groups,
N.Y.. 1 9 7 6 .
1 9 . R. Middleman, & G. Goldberg, op. cit.
2 0 . In order to avoid definitional problems of 'client'
and 'non-client", Middleman & Goldberg use
'sufferer' and "non sufferer'. While this is not
without operational difficulties it does help to
differentiate that group of people who work on
behalf of others with problems.
2 1 . R. Baker. "Building and Implementing Unitary
Social Work Practice: A Personal Account", op. pit.
2 2 . S e e for example, G. Egan, The Skilled Helper,
Brooks/Cole, Monterey. Calif., 1 9 7 5 , Stage I skills;
A.W. Combs, D . C Avila, & W . W . Purkey, Helping
Relationships — Basic Concepts for the Helping
Professions, Allyn & Bacon. Boston. 1 9 7 1 .
C. Rogers, "The Characteristics of a Helping
Relationship," in D.C. Avila. A.W. Combs. & W . W .
Purkey, T h e Helping Relationship Sourcebook,
Allyn & Bacon, Boston. 1 9 7 3 , pp. 2 - 1 8 .
2 3 . A. Pincus & A. Minahan, op. cit. Ch.4, esp.
pp. 7 6 - 8 0 .
24. R. Baker, "The Multirole Practitioner in the
Generic Orientation to Social Work Practice", Brit.
J. Social Work, 6(3), 1 9 7 6 . pp. 3 2 7 - 3 5 2 .
25. Baker. Loewenberg. Compton & Galaway.
Pincus & Minahan, and Bartlett.
2 6 . H. Goldstein, "A Unitary Approach —
Implications for Education and Practice," in P.
Parsloe ef a/. A Unitary Approach to Social Work
Practice — Implications for Education and
Organization, School of Social Administration,
University of Dundee. 1 9 7 5 , pp. 38ff.
2 7 . First Placement commenced midway through
December, 1986, Vol. 39, No.4
the first practice subject.
2 8 . This is a part of a Ph.D. thesis being written by
Richard Roberts.
2 9 . H. Goldstein, "A Unitary Approach —
Implications for Education and Practice." op. cit.
30. The highest proportion of students come
directly from secondary school and are around 1 9
years of age at this stage.
3 1 . R. Baker. "Towards Generic Social Work: a
Review and Some Innovations," Brit. J . Social
Work, 5(2), 1 9 7 5 .
R. Baker, "Exploring the U s e of the Bio-
Psychosocial Model in One Unitary Framework for
Social Work Practice," unpublished paper,
University of New South Wales, 1 9 8 0 .
R. Baker, "Notes on a Conceptual Framework for
Unitary Social Work Practice," op. cit.
32. B. Sheldon, "Theory and Practice in Social
Work: A Re-examination of a Tenuous
Relationship." Brit. J. Social Work, 8(1), p.9.
3 3 . R.J. Roberts, "Further Notes on a 'Systems'
Analysis of Social Work Practice," Contemporary
Social Work Education, 4(3), 1 9 8 1 .
34. ibid.
35. ibid. p. 2 2 4 and G. Drover & E. Schragge,
"Systems Theory and Social Work Education: A
Critique, Canadian J. of Social Work Education,
3(2), pp. 2 9 - 3 0 .
36. For example, R. Baker, "Building and
Implementing Unitary Social Work Practice: A
Personal Account," op. cit. p. 2 9 . For convenience
we have treated a range of terminology as
synonymous. W e are aware however that this could
well be challenged by a more systematic
examination of the nomenclature and its relation to
the different frameworks.
3 7 . R.J. Roberts. "Some Implications of Unitary
Approaches to Social Work Practice for Curriculum
Design," op. cit. pp. 2 4 6 - 2 4 7 .
3 8 . A. Pincus & A. Minahan, op. cit. p. xiii.
3 9 . S e e for example. W. Jordan, "Against the
Unitary Approach," New Society, June. 1 9 7 7 .
R. van Krieken, "Casework Recycled — On Ron
Baker's 'The Interpersonal Process in Generic
Social Work'", Australian Social W o r k , 33(4),
1980.
4 0 . R. Baker, "The Multirole Practitioner in the
Generic Orientation to Social Work Practice," op.
cit.. pp. 3 2 7 - 3 5 2 .
4 1 . ibid. p. 3 3 1 .
4 2 . Baker claims the roles were partly formulated
on the basis of observation but nowhere does he
provide the data on this.
4 3 . In personal communications.
44. R. Baker, "Building and Implementing Unitary
Social Work Practice: A Personal Account," op. cit.
p.33.
45. M . Siporin, "Practice Theory and Vested
Interests," Social Service Review, Sept.. 1 9 7 8 .
pp. 4 1 8 - 4 3 5 .
4 6 . University of New South Wales. Professional
Studies Faculty Handbook, years 1 9 7 8 to 1 9 8 2 .
4 7 . H. Bartlett, op. cit. p. 5 6 .
4 8 . For example. R. Bailey & M. Brake, Radical
Social Work, Arnold, Lond.. 1 9 7 5 .
M . Brake & R. Bailey, Radical Social Work
Practice, Arnold, Lond., 1 9 8 0 .
J . Galper, Social Work Practice — A Radical
Perspective, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1 9 8 0 .
D. Stat ham, Radicals in Social Work, R.K.P.,
Lond.. 1 9 7 8 .