What theories and methods do social workers report using in their practice? A scoping review

Abstract

A scoping review framework was used to explore and synthesize the existing international research surrounding social workers’ application of theory into practice. The results indicated: (a) social workers report employing pragmatic approaches; (b) although some social workers struggle to explicitly identify the theories and methods they utilize, implicit theoretical application is evident; (c) time is the greatest barrier to theoretical application; and (d) some social workers are concerned with individual functioning rather than social justice. There is a need to integrate theory into education and future research to explore the link between theory and practice implemented by social workers internationally.

Keywords

Method scoping review social work social work practice social work theories theory

Social work is a profession that is committed to enhancing people’s wellbeing. The global definition of social work by the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW, 2014) emphasizes the importance of utilizing theories in social work practice as it states: ‘[. . .] Underpinned by theories of social work, social sciences, humanities and indigenous knowledges, social work engages people and structures to address life challenges and enhance wellbeing’ (np). Although the global definition stipulates social work is underpinned by theory, there is a dearth of knowledge and evidence around how theory is being translated and used in practice.

Parton (2000) highlights that social work is distinctive in that theory and practice are ‘closely intertwined so that, at a minimum, practice informs the development of theory as much as, if not more than, vice versa and that it tries to give voice to the marginalized and silenced’ (p. 461). Yet, social work research on theories exemplifies a disconnect between theories and methods employed (Hicks, 2016; Hothersall, 2019; Montaño, 2012; Osmond and O’Conner, 2004; Teater and Hannan, 2021). Furthermore, research demonstrates that social workers often struggle to identify their use of theories and methods in practice (Hothersall, 2019; Lub, 2019; Muurinen and Kääriäinen, 2020; Osmond and O’Conner, 2004; Teater and Hannan, 2021), with Darlington et al. (2002) identifying ‘empirical effort, in the main, has repeatedly concluded that theory plays a minimal role in practice activity’ (p. 54), and Muurinen and Kääriäinen (2020) concluding ‘theoretical knowledge was only rarely or hardly ever used consciously’ (p. 1209). To identify the gaps in knowledge and advance the research regarding social workers’ use of theory and methods in practice, a scoping review of the international literature was conducted with the aim of exploring, identifying, and synthesizing the theories and methods social workers report using in their practice and how they report using theories and methods in practice.

Literature review

Theory in social work

Social work theory is a fundamental element of social work practice as it serves to provide an understanding, hypothesis, and/or prediction of what can or might happen in certain situations given particular circumstances, and points to the main sources of influence to create change (Lub, 2019; Teater, 2020a, 2020b). Theories are vital in guiding how social workers interact with service users and providing direction to determine the appropriate interventions, or methods. Montaño (2012) argues that ‘without [theory], the professional would develop an intuitive voluntaristic mode of work, based on common sense’ (p. 310), and Lub (2019) argues theory is necessary to establish the legitimacy of social work as a profession and calls for social workers to ‘have a properly thought-out basis for what they do, and that they ought to be able to make explicit what this basis entails’ (p. 4). Thus, theory is a necessary and fundamental aspect of professional practice as it provides ‘the foundation, or bedrock, on which social work interventions, or methods, are based’ (Teater, 2020b: 25) and can enhance accountability and effectiveness (Howe, 2016). Yet, Muurinen and Kääriäinen (2020) acknowledge that social workers may often find the use of theoretical knowledge ‘distant and irrelevant’ (p. 4).

Although ‘theories’ and ‘methods’ are often used interchangeably, Teater (2020b) details the distinction and relationship between the two where theories provide the knowledge base in helping to understand, predict, or hypothesize what is happening, or could happen, in a practice situation and methods refer to the specific intervention, practice, approach, technique, or mode that is used in the practice. Simply stated, theories provide a knowledge base and methods constitute the practices that social workers employ. For example, systems theory assists social workers in assessing clients’ situation by examining the various systems impacting clients, and after determining the specific system(s) in which to intervene, social workers will apply a specific method to that system, such as motivational interviewing, or advocacy work.

A gap between theory and practice is recognized within the literature (Carew, 1979; Hicks, 2016; Isaksson and Sjöström, 2017; Muurinen and Kääriäinen, 2020). Hicks’ (2016) conceptual review of the literature surrounding social work and theory indicated that for some social workers, theory and practice ‘are seen as separate, even incompatible, worlds’ (p. 404). This disconnect has been discussed in the literature and additional research concludes ‘the theory/practice relationship is neither a “marriage” (direct and immediate relationship) nor a “divorce” (disarticulation), but a “free union” (related through different mediations)’ (Montaño, 2012: 313). Montaño is acknowledging that although theories have their place in guiding social work practice, social workers also pull from various sources of knowledge and guidance to influence their practice. Montaño (2012) and Hicks (2016) both discuss the need to combine social work theory and practice more intentionally. Hicks (2016) also expresses concern for how we arrived at this disconnection between theory and practice, and suggests that future research should explore the origin of the divide, and scrutinize what continues to perpetuate the divide.

Social workers’ use of theories and methods in practice

Prominent theories utilized in social work practice include developmental theories such as attachment theories and life stage theories; psychodynamic theories including psychoanalytic theory and ego psychology; behavioral and social learning theories which encompass behavioral theory and cognitive theory; humanistic theories such as phenomenology and strengths-based; social constructionist theories including symbolic interactionism and role theory; systems theories which constitute general systems theory and life model; and critical theories which include critical social work theory; and feminist theory (Teater, 2020b). Moreover, social workers are concerned with how these theories intersect and impact our practice. For instance, a social worker may employ a phenomenological feminist approach when conducting research. Another example is when social workers utilize strengths-based approaches combined with psychoanalytic theory in direct practice to guide people to consider their past, with an emphasis on their strengths. The value in strengths-based theories or approaches is placed on the strengths of people. In contrast, when utilizing developmental theories, value is placed on examining whether people had healthy or unhealthy and age-appropriate development.

Over 40 years ago, Carew (1979) conducted a study which identified that social workers are not implementing theoretical knowledge to their practice, and instead relied on experience and practice wisdom. This finding has continued to be present in more current studies where social workers are found to lean on practice experience over utilizing theoretical foundations from the literature (Isaksson and Sjöström, 2017; Muurinen and Kääriäinen, 2020). While practice wisdom can be useful when working with similar cases that one has previously worked with, all cases are different and have different needs. Thus, research concerning social work theories and methods indicates concern for the lack of implementation of theoretical knowledge (Carew, 1979; Hicks, 2016; Isaksson and Sjöström, 2017; Muurinen and Kääriäinen, 2020; Teater and Hannan, 2021).

On the contrary, nearly 10 years after Carew’s (1979) study, Mackey et al. (1987) studied the relationship of theory to clinical practice and identified that social workers do implement theory in practice; and in fact, most respondents in their study identified using two or more theories to guide their practice with a preference for using ego psychology primarily, and family systems theory secondarily. Similarly, social workers’ use of theories and methods in practice has been found in more recent research. For example, Darlington et al. (2002) conducted research with child-abuse social workers and found a breadth of theoretical knowledge among participants that was used in combination to guide their assessment and explanations of physical child abuse, such as theories of child development and family systems theory. Teater and Hannan (2021) found 20 social workers to identify over 13 theories and methods within their practice, yet in contrast to Mackey et al. (1987), the theories reported to be used by the social workers tended to have a focus on problem-solving and individualism versus psychosocial orientations and systemic issues.

While previous research has focused, albeit limited, on what theories and methods social workers use in their practice, there is little research that focused on how theories and methods are implemented. One study that did focus on theory implementation by social workers found that theoretical knowledge can be implied or inferred when discussing practice – versus explicitly stated or systematically described – as social workers often have difficulty in identifying and explicitly stating the theoretical knowledge that underpins their work (Osmond and O’Connor, 2004). This finding was also supported by the research of Isaksson and Sjöström (2017), who found that social workers reported difficulty in recalling what theories and methods they utilized in their practice: ‘No one explicitly mentioned any scholarly acknowledged social work practice theory’ (p. 196). Yet, when examining the descriptions of practice from the social workers, Isaksson and Sjöström found the social workers did practice from a theoretical standpoint, which was most commonly systems theory.

To capture a complete picture of the existing knowledge on social workers’ use of theories and methods in social work practice, this scoping review aimed to: (a) explore and identify the international literature on social workers’ reported use of theories and methods in practice; (b) synthesize and summarize the themes found in this research; and (c) identify future directions for research on the extent and ways in which social workers use theories and methods in practice.

Methodology

This study employed the scoping review framework to explore international research on social workers’ reported use of theories and methods in practice. A scoping review is ‘a form of knowledge synthesis that addresses an exploratory research question aimed at mapping key concepts, types of evidence, and gaps in research related to a defined area or field by systematically searching, selecting, and synthesizing existing knowledge’ (Colquhoun et al., 2014: 1292–1294). The aim of a scoping review is not to critique the methodology of the studies reviewed, but rather to synthesize the evidence on a topic of interest (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005).

The five steps in conducting a scoping review were followed as described by Levac et al. (2010). The first step is to identify the research question(s), which were: (a) What theories and methods do social workers use in their practice? and (b) How do social workers use theories and methods in their practice? Given our interest in how social workers report using theories and methods in their practice, we delimited our research questions to exclude research where researchers were testing the explicit use of a specific theory or method or where social workers were not reporting on their practice themselves.

The second step in this process was to identify relevant studies. For this review, academic databases (MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, SocINDEX) were initially searched using a specific search string. Articles were limited to those published from 2000 to 2022. The initial search of the literature yielded 4976 articles. Based on the large number of returned articles, the field code specification for subject terms was included, and this second search yielded 2976 results. To obtain more relevant results surrounding the theories and methods that social workers self-report utilizing, the final search string was further revised. After removing 208 duplicates, there was a total of 594 studies to review.

The third step in a scoping review is determining whether each of the studies meet the inclusion criteria. In addition to the parameters set around publication years, the inclusion criteria included research on the theories and methods that social workers use in practice. The software Covidence was utilized to screen through the studies. One reviewer screened through the initial 594 studies and identified 43 studies for further review. Both reviewers screened the abstracts of the 43 identified studies separately. The researchers discussed this list together and re-reviewed the abstracts to resolve any uncertainties of whether to include the article. After this process, 15 articles remained, and the full articles were downloaded for full-text screening. Upon reviewing these articles, an additional 12 articles were excluded.

In addition to the three articles identified for inclusion from the scoping review, five additional articles were identified for inclusion. One of the articles was recommended by a member of the authors’ research network, which consisted of an article published in German and in a journal not included in the searched databases (Brielmaier, 2019); two articles were identified from reviewing the existing articles for scoping review, which were published in journals not subscribed to by the authors’ institution (Darlington, 2002; Osmond and O’Conner, 2004); one article consisted of a study published in a new journal not yet indexed (Teater and Hannan, 2021); and one was an article published only 1 month prior to the completion of the scoping review (Teater and Hannan, 2022).

The fourth step involved charting the data or findings of the review. For this review, a data extraction form was created by the researchers to chart the data, which included demographics of the sample, research design, instruments used, questions asked, sampling method, data analysis, and findings. Each researcher independently extracted data from the articles to the list. Once this process was complete, the researchers discussed their extractions and once again explored how each article aligned with the purpose of the review.

The final fifth step involved collecting, summarizing, and reporting the results. To summarize and synthesize the findings, the researchers reviewed all the data extraction forms and created a list of themes found across the studies. The following four themes were found: (a) pragmatic approaches, (b) implicit versus explicit theoretical knowledge, (c) barriers to theoretical application in practice, and (d) theories and methods of individual functioning versus social justice. The researchers discussed their findings to ensure that the data were represented and summarized appropriately. Table 1 provides a summary of the studies, and lists the theme or themes to which each study relates.

Table 1.

Social workers’ application of theories and methods to practice: Summary and themes of scoping review results (N = 8).

Author	Demographics	Design/analyses	Research questions/aims	Theme(s)
Algarin et al. (2009)	74 females, 9 males 82.2% were between 26 and 45 years old 95.2% had undergraduate degree General social work Seville, Spain	Mixed methods – quantitative questionnaire and structured interviews. Descriptive statistics	1. Conduct research on how social workers use theory in their daily practice 2. Carry out an analysis of the different intervention models most used in everyday social work life 3. Analyze the exclusivity or miscegenation of intervention models used	Pragmatic approaches Theories and methods of individual functioning versus social justice
Brielmaier (2019)	429 females, 160 males, 27 unspecified Mean age = 38.2 years, SD = 11.1 72.3% had bachelor’s degree, 26.4% had master’s degree, 1.3% had PhD General social work Germany	Online survey – primarily quantitative with one open-ended question. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses. Content analysis to convert qualitative data from open-ended question into quantitative data.	1. What is the relationship between employed social workers and social work theories? 2. Which social work theories are present in professional practice?	Pragmatic approaches Theories and methods of individual functioning versus social justice
Darlington et al. (2002)	11 females, 1 male 75% held a bachelor’s degree of social work, 25% held degrees in psychology, behavioral sciences, or humanities Child protection Australia	Qualitative – two rounds of in-depth interviews, followed by focus groups. Deductive analysis in which the data were interrogated by way of constant comparison to existing theories of physical child abuse.	Examine how practitioners understand and make sense of the abusive situations that they confront by specifically examining child welfare workers’ understandings or explanations of physical child abuse.	Pragmatic approaches
Isaksson and Sjöström (2017)	12 participants Mean age = 43 years Between 2.5 and 30 years of experience 100% had a bachelor’s degree in social work School social work Sweden	Qualitative – semi-structured interviews. Researchers coded the data according to classifications of social work perspectives derived from the literature.	1. How do school social workers relate to specific methods and evidence-based practice? 2. To what extent can school social workers’ descriptions of their practice be captured by a typology of four approaches of social work: task-centered, systems theory, strengths, and anti-oppressive?	Pragmatic approaches Implicit versus explicit theoretical knowledge Theories and methods of individual functioning versus social justice
Muurinen and Kääriäinen (2020)	16 participants in three practice and theory groups and 14 participants in follow-up meetings 6 months later Adult social work and child protection Finland	Qualitative – reflective group interviews during the last sessions of the three practice and theory groups and follow-up meetings held 3–6 months later. Thematic analysis.	1. What difficulties did the social workers describe in applying theoretical knowledge to practice? 2. What consequences did the social workers recognize when reflecting on and experimenting with theoretical knowledge?	Implicit versus explicit theoretical knowledge Barriers to theoretical application in practice
Osmond and O’Connor (2004)	10 females Between 3 and 15 years of experience 100% had a bachelor’s degree in social work Statutory child protection Australia	Qualitative – mixed-methods research design. Stage 1 involved in-depth interviews. Stage 2 entailed the use of four techniques: observation, think-aloud, unstructured interviewing, and reflective recall. Stage 3 comprised a knowledge map. The data were analyzed inductively to generate themes and issues relevant to the research questions. Then deductive analysis of the data was completed by way of constant comparison to relevant literature.	Examine practitioners’ use of theory and research in practice. Theory was conceptualized as: (a) explanation of client behavior, (b) method, and/or (c) how to do social work.	Pragmatic approaches Implicit versus explicit theoretical knowledge Theories and methods of individual functioning versus social justice
Teater and Hannan (2021)	16 females, 4 males Mean age = 42 years 100% had a master’s degree in social work and licensure to practice as a social worker in New York State General social work United States	Qualitative – individual interviews. The qualitative data were analyzed using a summative content analysis where the content from the interviews was mapped against Cox et al. (2020)’s five theory purposes.	Explore the use of theories by social workers in the United States, the underlying purposes of the social workers’ choice of theory, and whether the social workers’ practice had a focus on social change and social justice.	Theories and methods of individual functioning versus social justice
Teater and Hannan (2022)	Online survey – 69 females; 20 males; 2 nonbinary Mean age = 47.73 years, SD = 13.13 88% held a master’s degree in social work, 9% held a professional doctorate, 3% held a research doctorate General social work United States Individual interviews – 16 females and 4 males Mean age = 41.95 years 100% held a master’s degree in social work General social work United States	Mixed-methods research design consisting of survey methodology followed by individual interviews. The quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The qualitative data from open-ended questions on the survey were categorized and analyzed quantitatively. The data from the individual interviews were analyzed using summative content analysis.	1. What theory and method content did social workers report receiving in their social work education and to what extent did this content influence social workers’ practice? 2. What theories and methods do social workers report most influences their practice? 3. What other sources of information do social workers report utilizing in making practice decisions? 4. To what extent does the reported use of specific theories and methods differ based on social workers’ work-based characteristics? 5. How and to what extent do social workers use theories and methods in practice?	Pragmatic approaches Implicit versus explicit theoretical knowledge Barriers to theoretical application in practice Theories and methods of individual functioning versus social justice

SD: standard deviation.

Findings

Pragmatic approaches

Six studies found social workers to report employing pragmatic approaches to applying theories and methods to practice, which included implementing a breadth of social work theories and methods (Algarin et al., 2009; Brielmaier, 2009; Darlington et al., 2002; Isaksson and Sjöström, 2017; Osmond and O’Connor, 2004; Teater and Hannan, 2022). In these studies, social workers reported reliance on practical considerations, rather than theoretical knowledge to guide practice decisions. Specifically, social workers do what they think is best based on practice wisdom and experience and do not seem to seek guidance from the literature. In this type of practice, Algarin et al. (2009) remark that social workers exhibit creativity by blending epistemological approaches and pragmatism in their work. Practice appears to be influenced by a multitude of theories and interventions, a loose application of said theories, and practice experience (Algarin et al., 2009). Likewise, social workers report taking an eclectic approach and employing a ‘grab bag’ of theories in their practice (Teater and Hannan, 2022). Algarin et al. (2009) found that social workers did not always strictly follow the protocols established by intervention models. Instead, they often combined different models of interventions in their professional activities with more than 75 percent of the sample reporting use of more than one intervention model in practice. Thus, the social workers were not attached to a single intervention model but applying interventions flexibly given context and action. This practice of flexibility and mixing methods is echoed in Brielmaier (2019), Darlington et al. (2002), and Teater and Hannan (2022) with Algarin et al. (2009) reporting psychosocial, crisis, and systemic models as the most commonly combined theories and methods.

Likewise, Brielmaier (2019) found that social workers reported using a breadth of theories. Though the majority of respondents (68.5%) reported theories are suitable, 10 percent reported theories are not useful, while another 21 percent chose the option ‘I don’t know’. This further affirms that some social workers do not rely on theory, and instead trust their own sensibility to make practice decisions. Brielmaier found the most reportedly used theories were: lifeworld orientation (Thiersch, 61.6%); SPSA (Staub-Bernasconi, 16.8%); coping with life (Bohnisch, 6.75%); and user theory or social work (Schaarschuch/Oelerich, 2.9%). Notably, 77.2 percent of respondents voted against the statement ‘social work does not need its own theories’. Yet, some respondents answered with negative attitudes or ambivalence toward theory use in practice.

Darlington et al. (2002) studied theory use/understanding among child protective social workers and discovered that participants’ explanation of physical child abuse was found to be consistent with existing theoretical conjectures in the literature. Darlington et al. described participants’ understanding as ‘more holistic, ecological, or multimodal’ and indicated that their theoretical knowledge was contextual. The participants were not found to have an ‘in-depth understanding of all the theoretical ideas identified, but rather their accounts were suggestive of a frame of reference that values breadth and multiplicity’ (p. 61). Social workers exemplified broad, yet diverse theoretical knowledge. Darlington et al. found social workers revealed being surprised that they were able to articulate a breadth of social work theories as informing their practice, confirming the finding that theory use is ‘not that intentional’ (Teater and Hannan, 2022).

Isaksson and Sjöström (2017) conducted research on social work theories and methods employed by school social workers. One hundred percent of the school social workers reported taking a ‘pragmatic approach concerning which techniques/methods to use and how and when to use them’ (p. 195). Overall, the participants reported usage of a variety of theories and methods; and, notably, systems theory was most prominently mentioned by interviewees. Finally, participants tended to express ambivalence toward manual-based methods, for several reasons including a lack of time.

Research conducted by Osmond and O’Connor (2004) also highlighted the breadth of social work theories used by social workers. Social workers primarily identified use of child development theory and an additional 16 theories were identified as being used in their practice. After child development theory, systems theory was the second most utilized theory, followed by feminist theory, psychodynamic theory, crisis theory/intervention, and structural/critical theory. Moreover, another seven theories were implicitly evident in the social workers’ descriptions of their practice, with ecological theory being most prevalent.

Finally, Teater and Hannan (2022) found 75 percent of social workers were successful in describing how they applied theories and subsequent methods in their practice. More than 20 percent of the social workers identified the following six theories or methods they most commonly implemented in practice: cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), strengths perspective, trauma-informed care, attachment theory, motivational interviewing, and psychodynamic theory. This multitude of theory and method identification and articulation composed the theme of ‘breadth, not depth’. Social workers discussed using a ‘grab bag’ of different theories and methods and in support of ‘breadth not depth’, one social worker stated, ‘one theory does not fit all’. An additional theme of ‘practice is not that intentional’ involved social workers taking pragmatic approaches and relying on their practice wisdom to guide their practice.

Implicit versus explicit theoretical knowledge

Four studies found that although some social workers struggle to explicitly identify the theories and methods they consciously utilize, implicit theoretical knowledge and application are evident in their practice (Isaksson and Sjöström, 2017; Muurinen and Kääriäinen, 2020; Osmond and O’Connor, 2004; Teater and Hannan, 2022). Isaksson and Sjöström (2017) stressed that implicit theoretical application is important because social workers are, in fact, using social work theories and methods despite not being able to recall the specific formal language. Thus, practice may seem unintentional, but the theoretical knowledge and application do occur. Despite the difficulty identifying theory and method application among the social workers, and none of the social workers explicitly identifying any particular theories or methods they utilize, Isaksson and Sjöström were able to discern use of the following theories and methods based on how the social workers described what they did in practice: systems theory, task-centered, strengths based, and anti-oppressive.

Isaksson and Sjöström (2017) were able to identify implicit application of systems theory based on the social workers’ common use of terms like ‘holistic’ and ‘psychosocial’. In addition, systems theory application is substantiated by social workers’ evaluation and assessment of individuals’ environments. A task-centered approach was demonstrated by the prevalence of individual problem-solving, the substantial time and priority given to individual sessions, and the emphasis on analyzing things from the individual’s perspective. Social workers demonstrated use of strengths-based approaches through strong emphasis on ‘having a positive attitude and being hopeful, encouraging, and respectful’ (p. 198) and their stance on having a solution-focused perspective. In addition, implicit use of the strengths perspective was distinct as evidenced by their viewpoint that ‘the pupil is not the problem’. Their analysis of ‘the pupil in a vulnerable position’ and the social workers’ report of examining structural injustices within the school system confirm theoretical application of an anti-oppressive approach.

In addition, Isaksson and Sjöström (2017) identified that social workers tended to implement general approaches, but not specific techniques. Concerningly, they found that the majority of the school social workers surveyed were unable to provide a clear and coherent response regarding professional competence, specifically identifying what distinguishes them as a social worker from the other school personnel. Isaksson and Sjöström identified that social workers used lay language and discussed what they did, rather than specifying the logic behind why they did it: ‘no one explicitly mentioned any scholarly acknowledged social work practice theory. Nor did they refer to general theories within social or behavioural sciences, and their language use only rarely connected to professional social work terminology’ (p. 196).

Significantly, Muurinen and Kääriäinen (2020) demonstrated how reflective focus groups gave social workers the opportunity to recognize the implicit knowledge they already possessed, and to further develop their knowledge base. Reflective focus groups fostered professional growth and development and reportedly had a positive impact on professional self-esteem and helped social workers develop conscious understanding of theoretical application. Reflection on one’s own work enabled social workers to analyze their own expertise, and lack thereof, which allowed for further development of theoretical application, and more confidence in doing so. The existence of implicit knowledge and theoretical application was recognized, explored, and further developed, leading to social workers expressing explicit and conscious knowledge in theoretical application within their practice.

Research conducted by Osmond and O’Connor (2004), with social workers working in child welfare, resulted in concern for social workers’ understanding and application of theory: ‘despite the innovative, intensive multi-method research design, which afforded participants considerable latitude and opportunity to express what they know, most participants did not demonstrate a coherent, comprehensive and elaborated theory and research base to their practice’ (p. 5). Social workers reported a lack of confidence and certainty when pressed to elaborate further on how they apply theory in practice. Osmond and O’Connor indicated that social workers provided ‘snapshots’ of what they do by mentioning key features but were unsuccessful in fully describing social work theories. Though their concern is understandable, this was a small-scale study with 10 social workers, and despite this, the social workers were able to explicitly identify theory use plus some implicit theoretical application was evident. Social workers reported use of child development theory primarily, and an additional 16 theories were explicitly identified. Moreover, an additional seven theories were also implicitly discussed as identified by the researchers based on how the social workers described their practice, and despite the social workers neglecting to mention it, the researchers identified that three of the social workers were utilizing ecological theory.

Research conducted by Teater and Hannan (2022) revealed that some social workers practice without giving thought to the logic behind what they do. For 25 percent of the social workers interviewed, despite being able to identify a theory or method upon reflection, the use of theories and methods was not at the forefront of their thinking, and they indicated that their ‘practice is not that intentional’. When pressed to identify theoretical application in their practice, another social worker responded: ‘honestly, I’m like drawing a blank on all the theories right now. I think I don’t think of them until I actually have to use them’. Furthermore, a social worker highlighted implicit theoretical knowledge:

I feel that when we go to school and we learn all the theories and the practices, you know, we know them. But, we don’t know which ones we’re using kind of everyday. That’s kind of how it feels. Like, I know I am using them, but I sometimes, I don’t remember which ones I’m using.

However, as social workers described cases, most (75%) were able to identify a clear and specific theory and method which guided their practice decisions. In congruence with Isaksson and Sjöström (2017), implicit theory use was also evident as demonstrated by the methodological interventions social workers employed.

Barriers to theoretical application in practice

Time is reported to be the greatest barrier to theoretical application in practice, according to two of the studies reviewed (Muurinen and Kääriäinen, 2020; Teater and Hannan, 2022). Muurinen and Kääriäinen (2020) found that social workers reported that theoretical application rarely occurred consciously in their daily work. Participants described having a lack of time to read information on theoretical knowledge. Furthermore, they identified not having access to newly published professional literature. One social worker described how the ‘hurry’ at work contributes to the lack of time for scientific research, and difficulty in implementing it without support:

I do think that all of us should read professional literature in our work and such. But where does the time come from? We have had sort of good intentions of how we will read something and think about it in our team. But always, with all the hurry and everything else, it’s the first thing you leave out. (p. 1210)

Another barrier acknowledged was the difficulty to make changes to one’s established routine ways of doing things, particularly when there is no time and support for doing so.

Furthermore, social workers highlighted their lack of competence and acknowledged connecting theory to practice is not always a smooth process. Time away from school and educational concepts was also acknowledged and social workers in the field for many years reported estrangement from theories (Muurinen and Kääriäinen, 2020; Teater and Hannan, 2022). One social worker spoke about concepts being covered in social work education in ‘piecemeal’ and time was not dedicated to fully covering the concept and its application to practice (Teater and Hannan, 2022).

Social workers acknowledge that making the connection between theory and practice takes time (Teater and Hannan, 2022) and support (Muurinen and Kääriäinen, 2020). Thus, supervision is essential to guide social workers, especially new social workers, in comprehending how to combine theory to practice. One social worker described how ‘good supervision through training’ in field practicum was vital in learning from one’s practical mistakes and build on theoretical knowledge. Though social workers admitted to having ‘weakened professional self-esteem’, due to their difficulty in combining theory and practice, they strongly acknowledged the importance of theoretical knowledge (Muurinen and Kääriäinen, 2020).

Theories and methods of individual functioning versus social justice

In six of the studies, some social workers were predominantly concerned with individual functioning rather than social justice, and their choice of theory and method reflected this paradigm (Algarin et al., 2009; Brielmaier, 2019; Isaksson and Sjöström, 2017; Osmond and O’Connor, 2004; Teater and Hannan, 2021; Teater and Hannan, 2022). Notably, the implementation of a social justice lens, in combination with theories and methods focusing on individual functioning, is apparent in five of the six studies (Algarin et al., 2009; Brielmaier, 2019; Isaksson and Sjöström, 2017; Osmond and O’Connor, 2004; Teater and Hannan, 2022). For example, Teater and Hannan (2022) found that social workers primarily concentrated on individual problem-solving, but a social justice lens was present in some of their described work. The majority of the social workers (n = 18) identified practice theories and methods with a purpose of individual problem-solving with 12 of these social workers drawing from CBTs. In particular, CBT was the most commonly mentioned practice method, followed by dialectical behavioral therapy. In addition to CBT, implementation of problem-solving methods included the strengths perspective, family systems theory, and practice from a psychoanalysis/psychodynamic perspective. Theories and methods of problem-solving empowerment were identified with social workers engaging in advocacy work, facilitating groupwork, and conducting community needs assessments which can be viewed as doing individual work from a social justice lens. Finally, a social justice orientation was minimally evidenced with two social workers reporting theories and methods of social change by use of anti-oppressive/discriminatory practice and anti-racist practice.

Notably, Osmond and O’Connor (2004) appear to have discovered a blend between use of theories of individual functioning and social justice, though individualism dominates. Child welfare social workers report primary use of child development theories, which Osmond and O’Connor remark is to be expected as they are working with children, followed by systems theory. Thus, there was a focus on individual functioning by use of child development, as well as social justice in use of systems theory by analyzation of systemic factors/flaws. In addition, this blend between an individualistic and social justice focus was further amplified by the social workers’ reported use of additional theories and methods in the following order: feminist theory (social justice), psychodynamic theory (individualistic), crisis theory/intervention (individualistic), and structural/critical theory (social justice).

Algarin et al. (2009) remarked that social workers mainly lean on a theoretical foundation for individual and family functioning and their research indicates a predominant focus on psychosocial (individualistic), crisis (individualistic), and systemic models (social justice). Yet, upon further review, a blend of individualism and social justice was evident here as well by the nearly equivalent report of crisis intervention by 44 percent of the social workers, a case or diagnosis model by 42.9 percent, and a systemic model by 41.7 percent of the social workers. Admittedly, individualistic focuses are dominating, but the report of use of systemic models is suggestive of the presence of a social justice perspective.

Among German social workers, Brielmaier (2019) found that an overwhelming majority (61.6%) reports use of lifeworld orientation, which is not surprising as ‘this concept has, since its establishment in the 1970s, become dominant in German theory and practice discourses’ (Grunwald and Thiersch, 2009: 131). Rooted in phenomenology, the lifeworld orientation focuses on how systemic concerns influence the ‘successful everyday’ of individuals (Grunwald and Thiersch, 2009: 131), in congruence with the ‘person in environment’ perspective. Thus, a concern for individual functioning is prioritized, yet the social justice lens is apparent.

Contrary to the prominent focus on individual functioning, research done by Isaksson and Sjöström (2017) concluded that implementation of a social justice perspective is being displayed by school social workers in Sweden. Isaksson and Sjöström acknowledged that systems theory was most prominently discussed by participants, and they noted that this contrasts with the individualistic orientation indicated in research done in the United States. In fact, current research identified an individualistic perspective held by social workers in New York City (Teater and Hannan, 2022). Although the social workers engaged in mostly individual work, they did have a social justice lens (Isaksson and Sjöström, 2017). Isaksson and Sjöström identified that the task-centered approach was implemented by school social workers whereby they focused on individual problem-solving by spending considerable time in individual sessions and habitually viewing things from the students’ perspective. Significantly, social justice orientations are evident with social workers employing an anti-oppressive approach by stressing the importance of their alliance with the students. They identified themselves as ‘working for the pupil’ and against the organizational school system. In addition, they practice from a social justice orientation by engaging in attempts to ignite social change.

Discussion

This scoping review was conducted to explore how social workers reportedly implement theories and methods into their practice. In charting and synthesizing the data, the following four themes were established: (a) pragmatic approaches, (b) implicit versus explicit theoretical knowledge, (c) barriers to theoretical application in practice, and (d) theories and methods of individual functioning versus social justice.

Social workers report employing pragmatic approaches, yet also implement a breadth of social work theories and methods in their practice. Findings from this scoping review support previous arguments in that ‘there is no shortage of theories in this field’ (Lub, 2019: 5) and social workers implement a wide array of comprehensive theories and methods in practice (Dustin and Montgomery, 2010; Parton, 2000). The literature suggests social workers consciously rely on their practice experience when making practice decisions. For some social workers, this pragmatic approach is preferred over relying on established social work theories and methods. Furthermore, social workers describe using numerous theories and methods and discuss using an eclectic and flexible approach, based on the client needs. The literature reveals social workers make use of a multitude of theories, interventions, and practice wisdom to inform their practice decisions. Likewise, Chan and Chan (2004) claim ‘there is no one single objective “reality” in social work practice. Practice, therefore, cannot be fully understood by just one model’ (p. 544). Such findings highlight the need to further explore how and in what ways social workers use a collection of theories in practice situations and the extent to which this might constitute a ‘best practice’ approach in social work. For example, could pragmatism be the ‘theory’ or ‘approach’ of choice in social work over a single modality? And, if this is truly how social workers apply theory in practice, then what is the relationship between pragmatism and evidence-based interventions?

Although some social workers struggle to explicitly identify the theories and methods they consciously utilize, implicit theoretical knowledge and application are evident. When further examining social workers’ practice decisions, social work theories and methods are undeniably influential. Despite social workers reporting ‘practice is not that intentional’ (Teater and Hannan, 2022), theoretical knowledge is unmistakable based on the descriptions of how social workers confront cases and apply interventions, even when they do not recognize their own execution of theories and methods. Reflection on their practice could help social workers better connect theory to practice. Research by Muurinen and Kääriäinen (2020) demonstrated how reflective focus groups provide a critical opportunity for social workers to discuss and uncover the theoretical knowledge they already possess. The existence of implicit knowledge and theoretical application can be recognized, explored, and further developed leading to more theoretically guided social work practice. Thus, social work organizations should consider the integration of case conferences or practitioner support groups to assist in unpacking the knowledge that informs and shapes the practitioners’ knowledge, thus enabling the implicit to become explicit. This practice can also begin in social work education through the incorporation of theory-integrated assignments and critical reflection pieces that explore what knowledge was applied in a practice situation.

Time is the greatest barrier to theoretical application in practice. Social workers reported having a lack of time to dedicate to theoretical knowledge. Moreover, lack of access to professional literature was identified as a barrier, and a common theme of prioritizing the needs of the clients over reviewing scientific research emerged. For some social workers, time in the field disconnected from education led to greater estrangement from social work theories. Connecting theory and practice takes time (Teater and Hannan, 2022) and effort. Social workers acknowledge support in connecting theories to practice is critical (Muurinen and Kääriäinen, 2020). Thus, greater emphasis needs to be placed on making these connections in supervision sessions, particularly for new social workers.

Finally, some social workers are predominantly concerned with individual functioning rather than social justice, and their choice of theory reflects this paradigm. Despite the IFSW (2014) social work definition indicating a commitment to social justice, research indicates many social workers tend to practice with a focus on individual functioning (Algarin et al., 2009; Brielmaier, 2019; Osmond and O’Connor, 2004; Teater and Hannan, 2021; Teater and Hannan, 2022). Few social workers report having a social justice orientation, but nearly all surveyed social workers across these studies indicate implementing interventions to improve individual functioning. This finding highlights the need to explore the role of social justice content within social work education and how to integrate social justice concepts when working with clients on a micro level.

Conclusion

The findings should be considered alongside the following limitations: (a) little existing research was identified regarding social work theories and methods and how they are implemented into practice; thus, this is an emerging knowledge base and there is a need for further research; and (b) the review consisted of an exploration of three prominent databases and future research could enhance the review through the inclusion of other databases and the grey literature. Despite these limitations, this scoping review has illuminated how social workers reportedly implement social work theories and methods into their practice, whether implicitly or explicitly. Social workers tend to rely on their practice wisdom to make pragmatic and practical decisions, rather than trusting established theories to guide them. Yet, social workers report utilizing, and place value on having, an abundance of theories from which to draw. This scoping review highlights the necessity that social work education initiates the process of introduction to theories and methods and opportunities to bridge the gap between the theoretical frameworks and foundations and emphasizes the conscious selection of methods when in practice settings. Furthermore, reflection on practice needs to continue after social work formal education is complete. Therefore, this research emphasizes the importance of regular formal supervision that allows for reflection on practice decisions. Future research is necessary to further explore the link between theory and practice implemented by social workers internationally, pragmatism in choosing social work theories, and how formal supervision informs practice. Future research should encourage social workers to reflect on the theories and methods they know and understand, which they use in practice, and what influences their choice of employing that particular theory or method. Future research which explores social workers’ use of practice wisdom and pragmatism can clarify how social workers make practice decisions. Finally, research on formal supervision is needed to identify how, when, and why social workers use supervision and how supervisory input influences practice decisions.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Katrina Hannan

Author biographies

Katrina Hannan is Social Work Lecturer at the College of Staten Island, the City University of New York and a Doctoral Student in the PhD in Social Welfare program.

Barbra Teater is Professor of Social Work at the City University of New York where she is the Executive Officer of the PhD in Social Welfare program.

References

Algarin

Bernal

JLM

Sanchez-Serrano

(2009) A study of the application of social work theory to its daily practice. Cuadernos de Trabajo Social 22: 149–161.

Brielmaier

(2019) Berufstatige sozialarbeitende und die theorien der sozialen arbeit- empirische befunde. Neue Praxis (6): 527–543.

Arksey

O’Malley

(2005) Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8: 19–32.

Carew

(1979) The place of knowledge in social work activity. The British Journal of Social Work 9(3): 349–364.

Chan

(2004) Social workers’ conceptions of the relationship between theory and practice in an organizational context. International Social Work 47(4): 543–557.

Colquhoun

Levac

O’Brien

, et al (2014) Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 67: 1291–1294.

Cox

Cleak

Bhathal

, et al (2020) Theoretical frameworks in social work education: A scoping review. Social Work Education 40: 18–43.

Darlington

Osmond

Peile

(2002) Child welfare workers’ use of theory in working with physical child abuses: Implication for professional supervision. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services 83(1): 54–63.

Dustin

Montgomery

(2010) The user of social theory in reflecting on anti-oppressive practice with final year BSc social work students. Social Work Education 29(4): 386–401.

10.

Grunwald

Thiersch

(2019) The concept of the ‘lifeworld orientation’ for social work and social care. Journal of Social Work Practice 23(2): 131–146.

11.

Hicks

(2016) Theory and social work: A conceptual review of the literature. International Journal of Social Welfare 25(4): 399–414.

12.

Hothersall

(2019) Epistemology and social work: Enhancing the integration of theory, practice and research through philosophical pragmatism. European Journal of Social Work 22(5): 860–870.

13.

Howe

(2016) An Introduction to Social Work Theory: Making Sense in Practice. Abingdon: Routledge.

14.

International Federation of Social Workers (2014) Global Definition of Social Work. Available at: https://www.ifsw.org/what-is-social-work/global-definition-of-social-work/ (accessed 2 October 2021).

15.

Isaksson

Sjöström

(2017) Looking for ‘social work’ in school social work. European Journal of Social Work 20(2): 191–202.

16.

Levac

Colquhoun

O’Brien

(2010) Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science 5(1): 69.

17.

Lub

(2019) Theory, social work methods and participation. Journal of Social Work 19(1): 3–19.

18.

Mackey

Burek

Charkoudian

(1987) The relationship of theory to clinical practice. Clinical Social Work Journal 15(4): 368–383.

19.

Montaño

(2012) Social work theory–practice relationship: Challenges to overcoming positivist and postmodern fragmentation. International Social Work 55(3): 306–319.

20.

Muurinen

Kääriäinen

(2020) Integrating theory and practice in social work: An intervention with practitioners in Finland. Qualitative Social Work 19(5–6): 1200–1218.

21.

Osmond

O’Connor

(2004) Formalizing the unformalized: Practitioners’ communication of knowledge in practice. The British Journal of Social Work 34(5): 677–692.

22.

Parton

(2000) Some thoughts on the relationship between theory and practice in and for social work. The British Journal of Social Work 30(4): 449–463.

23.

Teater

(2020a) An Introduction to Applying Social Work Theories and Methods (3rd edn). New York: Open University Press/McGraw Hill Education.

24.

Teater

(2020b) Theories and methods of social work practice. In: Parker

(ed.) Introducing Social Work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

25.

Teater

Hannan

(2021) Where is the ‘social’ in social work? An analysis of social workers’ use of theory in practice. Propuestas Críticas en Trabajo Social – Critical Proposals in Social Work 1(1): 116–136.

26.

Teater

Hannan

(2022) Social workers’ use of theories and methods in practice: Identifying what informs social work practice in New York City. Journal of Social Work Education. Epub ahead of print 6 May. DOI: 10.1080/10437797.2022.2039824.