Acknowledging Differences in Strengths-Based Practice, and Critical/Structural Social Work: Searching for Continuity Between Approaches

The Source of Discontinuity

“Strengths-based practice (and particularly the strengths perspective) assumes the solution more important than understanding and analysis of the history of the problem” (Heinonen & Spearman, 2010, p. 226)

I have a difficult time with whole-heartedly embracing the strengths-based approach practice that does not recognize the structural and social reproduction of inequality and oppression.  Not because of the focus on strengths – that would be antithetical to social work practice.  I fully embrace the significance and role of resilience that individuals possess, develop, and utilize in asserting autonomy and personal growth.  I also like the anti-oppressive elements of not treating personal or social problems as pathologies within the individual.  There is no question that I fully agree with that.  As Heinonen & Spearman (2010) point out, there 4 key goals that the strengths perspective aims to achieve with clients:

1. Grow as individuals.
2. Allow individuals to improve their quality of life.
3. Develop capacity in individual problem-solving skills.
4. Effectively deal with their own stress and adversity.

I find that these are inarguably reasonable goals to achieve.  What is it then that causes dis-ease within my own social work framework?  It can be summarized in lines such as this:

“The focus of our efforts shifts from seeking to promote some sort of ‘change’ within the person or within environments.  We hone our skills in recognizing, appreciating, valuing, and utilizing that which is already there.” (Saleebey, 2013, p. 65)

Again, from a strengths-based or optimistic ecological model, it is antithetical to the values of social work to argue against such statements?  But what do we do in the face of austerity/retrenchment, neoliberalism, and promotion of discourses that create hostility towards the marginalized?  The biggest concern that arises from strengths-based practice is a concern in the abdication of the social justice role.  Do we seek to help form a just society with equitable services or systems, or passively make do with what’s available within the status quo and interest groups that push regressive agendas?

I imagine the practical answer lies somewhere in the middle, and that dichotomizing structural and radical realms of social work practice and strengths-based practice may seem trivial.  However, with a strong focus within the realms of structural practice, it may be useful to integrate the benefits of strengths-based practice within a structural model to highlight the hopes and aspirations that come with social justice and social change.

On the one hand, we want to promote clients to have autonomy in both perspectives.  At the same time, however, practitioners want to actively consider if internalized oppression from the dominant power-structures and subsequent schemas of our clients influence their understanding of strengths, ideal self, and socially just outcomes.  While we do not want to be oppressive through dismissing the meaning systems established by clients, we also have a purposeful role to play in not reinforcing the disempowering aspects of dominant discourses by being passive. Thus, I am inclined to think that strengths-based practice is only ethical when it considers how society shapes the cognitions of clients that, in turn, shape their perceptions of self.  While strengths-based practice seeks to highlight resiliency (which is good), it needs to also be conscious of the context in which resiliency takes place.  The increased emphasis of critical theory within the context of strengths-based practice is thus how I believe the best practice of the two practice perspectives can ethically unfold.

Reflecting on Saleebey’s writings

The Introduction to Strengths-Based Practice

Saleebey (2013) takes a (necessary) positive stand on the nature of individuals.  This perspective displays that all individuals have strengths.  We, as practitioners, can help the client unearth, recognize, and understand these strengths and the ways in which they can be used to actualize their own goals and dreams.  This perspective appears to suggest that our human nature seeks to be inherently good, and wants to move towards positive interaction.

With the innate positive nature of individuals, we don’t want to focus on the negatives of the individual.  Instead, we want to move towards what they seek in possibilities.  Rallying the interests, capacities, motivations, resources, and emotions is seen as the means to allow clients to work towards their hopes and dreams.  To engage in this work, we need to partake in the language of strength and resilience that looks at how to use these rallied domains of the individual’s consciousness instead of the language of problems.

We do not want to use the diagnostic label of an individual as a master status, as they detract from the experience of the individual and introduce assumptions, labels, etc.  The cultural meaning system’s schemas of the disease/syndrome can become predominant in the perception of the individual.  What Saleebey (2013) does not discuss here is how to challenge these labels.  Do we know if the diagnosis is empowering, by providing some sense of relief in knowing how a phenomenological reality (Castillo, 1997) is defined within a culture?  In this instance, it may be worthwhile to see how the client understands this, and assess if alternative meaning-making ways can change the way it is interpreted.  From there, a strengths-based practice that focuses on what has worked before, or what client resources may be useful in the circumstance would then be appropriate.

Saleebey (2013) rightfully notes the inequality, control, and manipulation that can emerge between the practitioner and client.  There is an acknowledgement of structural components that create this imbalance, such as class, privileged knowledge, role in institutions, or normative positions.  Saleebey suggests a Rogerian approach as a means to try and break down this barrier but does not suggest advocacy in policies – both within institutions and within a political advocacy capacity to seek a redistribution of power within the roles of client and worker.  In practice, both would ideally go hand-in-hand.  Using front-line experience to both inform needed policy/structure changes, while meeting the client with a welcoming approach that embraces their uniqueness.

Saleebey (2013) discusses the context-stripping (denying the power of context) in problem-based assessments as an individualistic approach that misses the ecological accounts of clients.  This is good because it moves the shift away from individual pathology to the bi-directional relationship between the individual and their environment.  As Saleebey (2013) notes, we want to understand within the strengths-based practice the cultural, social, political, ethnic, spiritual, and economic domains.  The goal is to understand how they shape an individual’s struggles, pain, and mistakes.

In traditional assessment, Saleebey discusses how we ignore pieces of the information and only pick up on the ones that attach to our practice perspective.  What I think becomes relevant here is finding out what has worked for the individual in the context of the world as they understand it, with attention to their narrative.  What is their perceived social location?  We do not want to impose other perspectives on it.  Still, we want to see what potential intersectional pieces they identify with, and highlight their resiliency.  This can be done with acknowledgement of the structural barriers that can exist with those intersectional attributes and their perseverance.

An empowering component discussed by Saleebey (2013) is the challenge to the medical model’s diagnosis and subsequent cure.  He argues that reinterpreting the problems that can be “diagnosed” can lead to the creation of new constructs that can then be addressed by the client.  This provides an opportunity to challenge the internalized power-structures the client may feel within medical systems.  One has to be cognizant of the value of both medical and professional helping roles as they try to balance the strengths of each other.  What I agree with is the need for drawing on the client’s attributes, abilities, competencies, and experiences to maximize their potential and how they make meaning of the situation.  The worker, however, also needs to reasonably consider the systems are unreasonably offloading unrealistic expectations to the client (such that the expectations are unrealistic and perpetuate stereotypes and schemas of the oppressed).  What I look for is if it is an abdication of collective responsibility for ensuring wellbeing within our communities, or is it putting realistic responsibilities on individuals to cultivate their own responsibility?  This is undoubtedly a loaded question that is rich in arguments that concern personal values and politics, so I leave it unanswered on purpose.  Part of my personal practice would be to examine the interests of the multiple systems — seeking to examine if they are offloading programming/services for the convenience of the privileged, or if it is for the empowerment of client and society in general.  This then needs to be put in the context of the client’s social and political understanding of their circumstances, social location, and intersectional understanding of self.

How we phrase the thoughts/ideas/beliefs around the client is very critical to how we regard the client and understand their concerns (Saleebey, 2013).  Thus, even our language around service use and rights/responsibilities regarding use and access to service use influence how we make decisions around our interactions with clients, communities, and systems.  Reflecting on my own value systems – especially collectivism, equity, feminism, and social democracy, it is evident that my critical and anti-oppressive tendencies are at the forefront.  In combination with strengths-based practice, there is a focus on maximizing both the potential of the individual and not removing or diminishing the legitimacy of client access to resources.  Being reflexive in this means that I do want to be empowering in my language around the client while assessing the values the client attaches to resource systems (as to not impose my own values).  Understanding their meaning systems around resources can help guide the balance between client resiliency and resources, and the value around traditional helping system(s) resources.

Saleebey (2013) introduced an “Essentials of the Strengths Perspectives” image that I found particularly useful in identifying client strengths.  It is a triangle with 3 points (C, P, & R).  These individually represent:

• C: Competence, capacities, and courage
• P: Promise, possibility, potential, & positive expectations
• R: Resilience, reserves, resources, and resourcefulness

Saleebey (2013) speaks of the importance of the relationship between the practitioner and client, as well as the client’s hope, positive expectations, and belief in healing, the question that arises is how well this fits with people who feel fundamentally disconnected with society. I feel that there is a certain level of privilege or baseline of assumptions around Saleebey’s approach that may not fit well when there are significant layers of oppression and alienation.  I suspect there is room here for the incorporation of the “structural approaches to practice” (see Lundy, 2011, p. 170).   This process can look at the healing process through the client’s perceived social/economic conditions, and thoughts/emotions.  The resources, abilities, hopes, and dreams can be explored for personal growth or bi-directionality with society (including empowerment through activism), as well as self-reflection on reframing one understanding of self with gained knowledge of their abilities, resources, hopes, and dreams.

This could include a narrative component (White & Epston, 1990).  Restructuring the understanding of self leaves room to renegotiate one’s internalized self-worth (Lundy, 2011).  The hopes, dreams, resources, and abilities can be explored as ways of maintaining wellbeing within the systems the client interacts with — as well as having a voice in what they want to see in communities as community members, and advancing any existing needs for resources.  In essence, this perspective moves beyond seeing the individual as discovering and expanding the resources and tools they discover and utilize within their systems but to open the door for critical thinking about social location and self-concept in anti-oppressive ways as they form bi-directional relationships within the (sub)system(s).  Taking this approach fits well with Saleebey’s (2013) idea of clients, as with all people, wanting to have group membership that provides dignity, respect, and responsibility, but also seeks to prevent internalization when such relationships are not experienced outside of the client-worker relationship.

Resilience is another component Saleebey (2013) speaks about and is particularly relevant between both the critical/structural and strengths-based.  From a structural perspective, resilience appears to be a means to endure, rather than an end in and of itself (Lundy, 2011).  The question that I ask here is how to keep resilience as a sustainable force within the individual’s life.  For me, this means attending and recognizing both the continual growth/capacity-building for knowledge, insight, and empowerment, but also recognizing the line where advocacy for programs, services, and policies as a means to enhance the pursuit of the individual’s dreams and goals.  This leaves room for collective social action with peers and communities that have similar experiences, which opens doors to developing further social connections in our communities.

I do like what Saleebey (2013) discusses in reference to the creative and emergent relationship with others.  The strengths perspective, from my understanding of this process, is a medium in which the client becomes affirmed for their importance — providing an opportunity to heal the relationships with themself, others, and the institution.  This is a powerful role social workers can partake in – especially working within systems, to check for and/or challenge disempowering discourses clients may have encountered.  Founding a conversation on love, humility, and faith frames the conversation around possibility — again providing room to challenge schemas, discourses, and oppression.  This is worth holding onto in all specialties and directions of practice.

Incorporating the Core Principles of Strengths-Based Practice

1. All individuals, groups, and communities have strengths.
   • This is a core principle to apply within both realms of practice, as a recognition that people have successfully survived and navigated systems to the best of their ability thus far.  Understanding the abilities, strategies, and ways of knowing that have led the client thus far.  We should aim to understand their story of how they have persevered, what has kept them able to persevere, and what drives them to continue to persevere.  Be curious about what they have learned along this journey.  Pointing these out these learnings and abilities in the face of adversity, once the client feels their story has been heard, affirms their strengths.  Framing these learnings and abilities in the context of meeting their challenges and goals affirms belief in the client.
2. Trauma, Abuse, Illness, and struggles may have had significant impacts, but they can also be sources of challenge and opportunity.
   • This is a significant empowerment piece because it fits well with challenging the idea that people are passive and not active in influencing the trajectory of their life.  People grow, learn, and adjust to their environment.  In recognizing trauma under this category, we also open up the possibilities to not only explore resiliency but also include exploration of post-traumatic growth (Regehr, 2018).  Once again, acknowledging this resiliency and growth, and how it can shape the narrative of the individual can be another empowerment-based avenue (White and Epson, 1990).  Taking such an approach opens the working alliance to addressing oppressive discourses and highlighting how they may be an exception to those discourses — potentially challenging them.
3. Make sure we do not assume the upper limits of the client’s capacity to grow and change.  Take the aspirations of the client (be it individual, group, or community) seriously!
   • What is important to me in this facet of strengths-based practice is that the person is not the diagnosis.  No one should be limited by a label.  Keeping the door open to the possibilities of change and growth is a good direction to maintain engagement with the client’s hopes, dreams, values, and vision.  Looking at what skills, abilities, knowledge, and motivation they have.  This is not to dismiss or discredit “experts,” but to acknowledge that there is a broader range of variables that may not be considered or known to the wider community of service providers.
4. We serve clients best when we collaborate with them.
   • Being in the role of a collaborator and/or consultant fits well with critical and structural forms of social work through recognition of the dignity and equal worth of all persons (Lundy, 2011; Saleebey, 2013).  Seeking to learn and understand the lived reality and possible solutions should humble the service provider and bring the client and service provider each to the table with some ideas that can be relevant in understanding, making meaning of, and addressing the presenting concerns (Saleebey, 2013).  The practitioner wants to draw on the client’s experience and wisdom, narratives, hopes, and fears not but be paternalistic in their interpretation and communication of the client’s path.
   • While Saleebey (2013) looks at the role of the practitioner as an advocate (getting the story and views of the client out to other subsystems), there is also empowerment opportunity through engagement in social change.  Within a structural and anti-oppressive mindset, it may also be worthwhile to ask clients if they have interests in networking with individuals who have shared concerns, hopes, and dreams (Lundy, 2011).  This may provide an opportunity for individuals to enrich their social networks, address specific issues that impact their lives, and establish in-group solidarity with those who share common threads of life experience(s).  It may furthermore provide opportunities in which clients can choose to become involved in social action so that they are not passive recipients of their circumstances, but challengers of discourse (see the spiral model of community action, Lundy, 2011).
5. Every environment is full of resources.
   • Recognition of resources within communities, groups, and individuals is an important consideration for all forms of social work practice.  This is a strengths-based concept that transfers well over to critical/structural components of practice – especially when collaboratively working within groups to be empowering, acknowledge resilience, or exploring alternative narrative interpretations (Lundy, 2011; Saleebey, 2013).  Finding the resources that exist, that can be forged, or that exist within social institutions can provide the needed knowledge, succour, actualization of talent, or space to process presenting concerns.
6. Caring, Caretaking, and the Context
   • Saleebey (2013) acknowledges Stone’s three rights to care.  This includes permission to care and receive assistance for the care of their members.  The caregivers need appropriate supports to provide the best support they can provide without it negatively impacting their wellbeing. Also, all individuals who need care need access to it.
   • Caretaking is a critical function within society, and social policies should recognize it as such.  This should include professional advocacy as well as opportunities for support and advocacy groups to emerge that can provide political empowerment and a voice to caregivers — so that their hopes, dreams, and desires can be shared and received by those in positions of power.

Upon reflection of this chapter, I believe that to uphold the Canadian Association of Social Worker’s Code of Ethics (2005) for social justice, structural and critical components of social work need to be combined with a strengths perspective.  This allows for social workers to not be co-opted as a tool to make people fit within a dominant system but to promote a bi-directional relationship between service users and policymakers and policy-shapers.  While the strengths perspectives build the client up, the structural components seek to lift society up from the lived experiences and wisdom that clients can offer their wisdom — if ready to do so.

References

Canadian Association of Social Workers. (2005). Code of ethics 2005.  Retrieved from

https://acsw.in1touch.org/document/1328/casw_code_of_ethics.pdf

Castillo, R. J. (1997). Culture & mental illness: a client-centered approach. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Pub.

Heinonen, T., & Spearman, L. B. (2010). Social work practice: Problem solving and beyond (3rd ed.). Toronto, ON: Nelson Education.

Regehr, C. (2018). Stress, trauma, and decision-making for social workers. Chichester, NY: Columbia University Press

Saleebey, D. (2013). The strengths perspective in social work practice (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company