Understanding Social Work in the History of Ideas

What is Social Work?

This question is often raised by both practitioners and researchers in social work. Here, I shall distinguish between three independent but interrelated concepts to explore what social work may involve. It is important analytically to separate social work as a practical activity, an academic discipline, and a research tradition.

Social work as a practical activity. Social work as a practical activity aims to help people who experience social problems. The earliest and most distinct definitions of social work as a practical activity are to be found in Mary Richmond's works, and refer to social work as casework. As examples, here are some definitions from her works and those of others:

The art of doing different things for and with different people by cooperating with them to achieve at one and the same time their own and society's betterment. (Richmond, 1915, p. 43)

The art of bringing about better adjustments in the social relationships of individual men, or women, or children. (Richmond, 1917, p. 389)

An art in which knowledge of the science of human relationships and skill in relationship are used to mobilize capacities in the individual and resources in the community appropriate for better adjustment between the client and all or any part of his environment. (Bowers, 1949, p. 317)

Social work seeks to enhance the social functioning of individuals, singly and in groups, by activities focused upon their social relationships which constitute the interaction between man and his environment. These activities can be grouped into three functions: restoration of impaired capacity, provision of individual and social resources, and prevention of dysfunction. (Boehm, 1958, p. 18)

Casework has always been a psychological treatment method. It recognizes both internal psychological and external social causes of malfunctioning and endeavors to enable the individual to meet his needs more fully and to function more adequately in his social relationships (Hollis, 1964, p. 1)

By provision of certain services and material resources and by psychologically therapeutic supports and counsel, casework modifies either the problem experienced in the individual case or the person’s modes of coping with it or both. The aim of casework is to restore or reinforce or refashion the social functioning of individuals and their families who are having trouble with person-to-person or person-to-circumstance encounters. (Perlman, 1965, p. 607)

From Theory to Practice—Research for Change

In social work as a research tradition, we can see two mainstream tendencies in the history of ideas. My terms for these are from theory to practice and from practice to theory. By from theory to practice, I mean that research results and theoretical knowledge are intended as a foundation for social practice, regardless of whether the research is based on current professional and sociopolitical priorities or merely on issues raised theoretically (intrascientifically). By from practice to theory, I mean that social practice conducted by individuals may generate research findings that may be distilled to generalized knowledge (much similar to practice-based research, a term used in the current social work discourse). In 19th-century ideas of significance to the development of social work, these two tendencies exist side by side, and to a certain extent are interwoven. This is because the traditions that develop as practice, and which then attempt to form a theoretical foundation, are influenced by the theories of other traditions. How these tendencies are interwoven and how this manifests itself in the perspective of developments in the history of ideas are empirical questions that remain to be studied.

Action for social change seen from the viewpoint of the from theory to practice tendency in the history of ideas can be studied in both its narrow or its wide meaning. The former refers to research explicitly formulated in such a way that its purpose is implementation for change. We can call this “research for change.” The latter refers to social analysis and social theory used by a group of agents in order to change society. It should be emphasized that “social work” and “action for social change” are used as synonyms, since all social work ultimately aims at social change.

In his book Historic Themes and Landmarks in Social Welfare Research (1977), Sidney E. Zimbalist, once a Columbia University social work professor, studies the type of research referred to here as research for change. Zimbalist reviewed research projects in social work and social welfare carried out in the United States from 1870 to the mid-1960s.

The l870s are chosen as the starting point since organized social work starts to develop with the founding of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections (NCCC) in 1879. References are also given in the book to research work undertaken in the 1970s. However, Zimbalist generally sets the limit as the mid-1960s, as he concentrates on long-term research themes and milestones whose delimitation is dependent on a longer historical perspective.

Zimbalist (1977) uses the concept of “historical research theme” and writes:

In the course of the investigation of the development of research in this field, it was found that there have been a number of distinct “waves” or “cycles” of emphasis in research interest and activity over the years. While they overlap each other considerably and in some instances have either been recurrent or continuous through many decades, nevertheless they tend to be more or less self-contained, coherent, and cumulative trends over a given period. In most cases they may be said to reflect current research “fashions” in the field—swings of the scientific pendulum, as it were—that arose out of current professional and social priorities, crystallized and proliferated to a peak of popularity, and then often subsided or stabilized (p. 7).

Zimbalist identifies six research themes:

An important issue revealed by Zimbalist is the delimitation of research in the work of social change. Here, he uses both “social work research” and “social welfare research” as starting points, as well as research in adjacent fields, such as sociology, psychology, and economics. Zimbalist (1977) uses the following criteria to identify research in the work of social change:

All of these criteria are extrascientific. Criteria 2–5 refer to the organizational relationship of the research to social work. The first criterion is also extrascientific, but in addition has to do with action for social change. Zimbalist points out that this research has its origin in current professional and sociopolitical priorities. In other words, the inspiration for the formulation of the problems comes from social work practice. The problems are extrascientifically formulated. But, the relevant issue is that the decisive process moves from theory to practice. The procedure is that practical activity provides impulses for professional and sociopolitical considerations, which in turn provide impulses for research. The production of knowledge is carried on to change social reality. First comes the systematic and scientific production of knowledge and then follows action for social change—hence the moniker “research for change.”

As noted above, Zimbalist identifies six central research themes in his survey of American research for change since the 1870s. These themes have also been, and still are, of interest in a European context. Some of the research reviewed by Zimbalist has its origins in British research, for example. Standard-of-living studies in Sweden during the last two decades can be largely regarded as research on the distribution and quantification of poverty, and “indexing” in social work. Evaluation research is once again of interest as a consequence of economic crises in welfare states, increased awareness of service quality, and comparative effectiveness. However, the strongest current expression of research for change is the development of outcomes studies and intervention research (Fraser et al., 2011).

From Theory to Practice—Agent Activity

As described above, the continuity in the history of ideas runs from the work of the Scottish School of thinkers throughout the social change philosophies of the 19th century. The basic idea of these philosophies is that societal problems and deficits should be compensated by means of scientifically acquired knowledge.

During the 19th century, several movements emerged that claimed to be able to change and improve society through scientific knowledge. Some of the most important were Saint-Simonism and Proudhon in France, the Fabian Society in England, and Verein fur Sozialpolitik in Germany (e.g., Frängsmyr, 1980; Hirdman, 1989). The Marxist movement with the Internationals in the forefront holds a special place in this context. In his writings on phalanstery—a utopian form of community in which all property is shared—Charles Fourier tried to carry on the work of change through his campaigns—one example of a single individual who fought a rather lonely battle to implement a program for social change in the 19th century.

These authors’ works and achievements are summarized as “sociology as agent activity” (Eriksson, 1988). In other words, it can be said that sociology exists as agent activity when a group of people with a theory on the future development of society want to speed up its change in that direction. It follows that sociology as agent activity is made up of three disparate but interconnected elements: a theory of society and history; a program for changing society from a bad present situation to a better future one; and a group of people who are committed to implementing this change.

In the language of the present article, agent activity corresponds to the from theory to practice tendency in the history of ideas (see Soydan, 1993a, pp. 47–75). The tendency described here means that research, the philosophies of history, and the theoretical constructions form the basis and origin of programs and action strategies for social practice, the action for social change. The central issue is, of course, the relationship between sociology as agent activity and social work as action for social change, an issue that will be discussed in a later section.

From Practice to Theory

I have called the second tendency in the history of ideas from practice to theory. In terms of process, the practice—the action for social change—is the primary step and forms the foundation for the accumulation of knowledge. Within this tradition, social work manifests itself mainly as a practical activity, the goal of which is to help people and communities affected by social problems. I have already indicated that one way of familiarizing oneself with this tendency has been by seeking social work’s heritage of ideas in human sociality and mutuality in assisting fellow human beings. I suggested that this approach does not really provide us with much guidance in terms of understanding social work as a practice and a scientific discipline. Sociality or social responsiveness is a fundamental feature of all human social existence. Social responsiveness is embedded in social work. But social work as a practical activity and a scientific discipline, seen from the perspective of from practice to theory in the history of ideas, has its roots principally in the development of industrialism. The rapid industrialization of Europe and America with urbanization, unemployment, shortage of housing, and other social problems as consequences triggered in people a desire to remedy what they considered problematic. At times it was thought that society generated social problems. Consequently, something must be done about the problem-generating society. But it was also thought that the individual generated social problems, and as a result, action strategies for change must be directed toward the problem-generating individual. Within the framework of the from practice to theory tendency, we find both of these concepts, which to some degree have developed in conflict with each other. Social work as a practical activity developed both in Europe—especially in Great Britain where the industrial revolution originated—and the United States. Developments in Britain provided impulses for developments in America, and vice versa.

After the American Civil War, the so-called dependent classes—the poor, the mentally ill, and criminals—gradually came under the protection of the state. The care and control of these groups were gradually transferred to mental health care institutions, prisons, and state charity boards. Within the private sector, voluntary organizations and child care agencies began to grow. People engaged in both public and private charity work, and together with a number of intellectuals, organized the American Social Science Association (ASSA) in 1865. It soon became apparent, however, that these practitioners and members of academia saw their interests differently. The intellectuals in ASSA felt the primary aim was to develop and compile knowledge that could be used to impact social problems. Conversely, the practitioners, those responsible for the care and control of the socially underprivileged, were interested in developing immediate methods and interventions. Conflicts of interest became increasingly serious. In 1874, the practitioners left ASSA and formed a new organization, the Conference of Charities, which in 1879 was rechristened as the NCCC. This organization later became known as the National Conference on Social Welfare.

Germain and Gitterman (1980) point out that the ideological conflicts in the development of practical social work were more complex than the organizational changes. Several conflicting schools of ideas manifested themselves. There was even conflict within each ideological movement. The central controversial issue, however, was the origin of evil. Is it society or the individual that generates social problems?

During the 1880s, two professional groups developed in the United States: charity organizations and the settlement movement. Both movements spread relatively fast and their different ideologies had their origins in Victorian Britain. The movements also had different working methods. They attracted well-educated young people from the upper and middle classes, especially young women who, through their involvement, acquired social status and economic independence. Both movements had strong religious roots. Despite their different ideologies and working methods, both of these movements—the settlement movement and the Charity Organization Society (COS)—had great influence on the development of social work.

Jane Addams and Mary Richmond were two important pioneers in these movements. Addams and her sympathizers settled in poor neighborhoods and lived side by side with the people they served. The basic view of the settlement movement was that the environment—that is, society—generated social problems, and that changes must be made in people’s surroundings if social workers were to improve the social situation of individuals and combat poverty. However, the COS, with Mary Richmond at the forefront, was not interested in social reforms. Its ideas were based on the belief that individuals were the cause of poverty and social problems.

However, one common feature shared by these two important forces in the history of social work is that they first developed as movements, as practice. Their social activity was naturally based on an understanding of the origins and character of social problems and insights into how they could be eliminated. But it was clear that the movements were born as social activities among and for people in need. They were not movements with their origins in strong and well-formulated research traditions or philosophies of history. It was not until later that they discovered the need to base social activity on the systematic production of knowledge. This was expressed earlier and more clearly in the work of Jane Addams than that of Mary Richmond, even if the latter eventually wrote two of the classic method books of social work.

The settlement movement sought contacts with knowledge-producing institutions relatively early. There were personal contacts between Jane Addams and her colleagues and prominent researchers involved in social issues such as John Dewey. These contacts, and the eagerness of the settlement movement to establish a base for its practical social work in the production of knowledge, led to the founding of the Chicago School of Civics and Philanthropy, which in 1920 became the School of Social Service Administration at the University of Chicago (see Soydan, 1993a, pp. 105–129).

Mary Richmond took a different attitude. In striving to establish a base for casework through professional schooling, she was against university-based courses. She believed that it would ruin the natural commitment of social workers to their work, and argued in favor of an independent school for training social workers. Through the COS in New York, the New York School of Philanthropy was established. It was later known as the New York School of Social Work and was incorporated into Columbia University in 1959, ultimately being designated as the Columbia University School of Social Work in the 1962–1963 academic year.

The from practice to theory tendency in the history of ideas in social work is a strong tradition. It is a tendency that first and foremost provides social work as practice with a historical identity. It also provides the profession with an identity. But what role does it play in relation to social work as a research tradition? Has it worked as a driving force for research in social work? And, if so, in what way? My hypothesis is that this tendency has had a significant impact on social work as a research tradition. The hypothesis can only be substantiated by means of a description of the history of ideas within the tendency.

Delimitation Problems in Social Work

Social work as a practical activity has points of contact with several neighboring fields and professions. Psychologists, psychotherapists, nurses, lawyers, and police officers are examples of professionals whose fields touch on or partly coincide with those of trained social workers. Social work as a practice and profession develops side by side with these and other professions, and sometimes in competition with them.

Similarly, social work as a scientific discipline has points of contact with other disciplines such as sociology, psychology, psychiatry, public health, law, and social policy. These disciplines lay claim to different aspects of social life and insist that each has its own specific object of study. In some cases, hybrids are formed between disciplines with the purpose of examining a common object of study—the sociology of law is one such example. Even social work itself has been perceived as a hybrid science. But as time has passed, the need for social work to create an identity of its own as a research discipline has become clearer and clearer. The professionalization of social work practice is, of course, another important factor.

That social work, sociology, psychology, and other disciplines claim to be specific research traditions is a result of the specialization that has taken place in the social and behavioral sciences. Both extrascientific and intrascientific reasons lie behind this tendency toward specialization, which also involves fragmentation, a problem addressed by multidisciplinary collaboration and approaches.

It should be noted that it was society’s need to use the social sciences that contributed to a high degree of this specialization. Several disciplines were involved as the basis for the education of a growing number of professions. During the 19th century, theoreticians searched for holistic solutions to social problems or social change. In the 20th century, the orientation has been toward solving limited problems through so-called piecemeal engineering, meaning that the demand for specialists, including social workers among others, increased. But there were also other reasons for specialization. The large number of new methods and theories developed to deal with increasing amount of material and practical tasks was an important driving force behind specialization (Liedman, 1983). The emergence and the development of the science of systematic research reviews and meta-analysis by the Cochrane and Campbell collaborations for the last decade or so should also be seen as a response to increasing amounts of empirical data.

Multidisciplinary (or, as in earlier terminologies, interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary) studies have been thought of as an antidote to the negative consequences of specialization. But such attempts have, for several reasons, not yet proved very effective. One considerable obstacle is that the participating disciplines only contribute to the multidisciplinary research work with their own theoretical and methodological traditions, without necessarily trying to adapt new and innovative methodologies.

Interestingly, the question of the relationship between sociology and social work was once referred to in an insidious way in an evaluation of Swedish sociology. The three Nordic sociology professors responsible for the evaluation write:

For disciplines without a theoretical tradition of their own and with no obvious international roots, noticeable identity problems arise. This is the case with social work. The most common solution has been that those working in the discipline stay within their original discipline in their research, but at the same time collaborate with other subjects. Most teachers of social work have also actively pursued their research activities in this way. The problem is that representatives of social work in the second generation risk being totally without the identity of a discipline and the theoretical core that connections to disciplines like sociology and psychology. This is perhaps why certain representatives of the discipline . . . devote a great deal of energy to constructing a theoretical disciplinary identity of its own, or a “field of content,” for social work. This seems, however, to lead to artificial constructions and, in the first place, reinforces the skepticism felt when faced with the prospect of social work creating its own disciplinary identity that would remain constant at a minimum level over a period of time. It is reasonable to wonder whether or not social work as a university discipline should be linked much more strongly to both sociology and psychology than is the case at present. It is, on the other hand, important that social workers have opportunities of expressing their common interests as professional body. (Allardt, Lysgaard, & Bottger Sorensen, 1988, p. 47)

I share the evaluators’ view as far as the difficulties ascribed to social work are concerned, but I would add that problems associated with defining the territory of a discipline is not confined to social work. I do not share their overall conclusion that social work should be incorporated into other disciplines so that it is ensured its own identity as a discipline at a minimum level of constancy over a period of time. I am of the opinion that these authors overrate the ability of sociology (and other social and behavioral disciplines) to solve its theoretical and methodological problems, and underrate the ability of social work to develop a theoretical and methodological identity of its own.

It is true that, since the Scottish School of writers, sociology has developed both theory and method for analysis of society, and that the discipline has an established organization as a result of a high degree of institutionalization, among other factors. There are many characteristics that underline the fact that sociology is an established discipline. The discipline has developed many productive theories, thereby revealing important processes and mechanisms in society and social life, as well as a great number of applicable methods. But it is also true that the recurrent discussions about the discipline’s theoretical core and methodological problems show that the discipline of sociology, in principle, is struggling with the same type of problems as social work with regard to theories of science and knowledge. Typically, a sociologist writes: “Sociology has no examples whatsoever of such an amalgamation of empiricism and theory, where it is difficult to say where the boundary between them goes. They are on the whole totally independent of each other, something that is indicated by the usual comment on examination work: ‘Perhaps you could try to push in a bit of theory somewhere as well’” (Eriksson, 1981, p. 11).

Another reason why the “rescue” of social work does not require incorporation into other disciplines is that social work as a research discipline is not so lacking in traditions as may be thought. The main thesis of this article is that there are traditions in the history of ideas that social work can build upon, and Soydan (1993a) provides empirical examples of traditions in ideas that can form a basis for the identity of social work as a scientific discipline.

As I see it, there are at least two relevant points of intersection between sociology and social work: one is their approach to social problems and the other is their approach to social change and action for social change.

Let us first look at the connection between sociology and social work through the concept of social problems. In their classic work on social problems, Rubington and Weinberg (1971) point out that the study of social problems was a central issue for American sociology. This went hand in hand with studies of what the authors considered another central object of inquiry, namely, social interaction.

They argue that the study of social problems was a central occupation about 110 years ago in the United States with the development of sociology. They state: “Sociology deals with social interaction, those situations in which two or more people adapt their conduct to each other. Most social problems arise in the course of or in consequence of social interaction. Few of the developing disciplines in the late nineteenth century dealt with matters of this kind. Thus, partly by choice and partly by default, sociology appeared on the American scene to deal simultaneously with social problems and with social interaction” (Rubington & Weinberg, 1971, p. 334).

Of particular interest from the perspective of a history of ideas, Rubington and Weinberg (1971) also write:

The great bulk of the leading American sociologists were ministers’ sons who had moved from small rural towns to the rapidly growing cities. They witnessed the changes from a farm to a factory economy. All about them they saw the signs of rapid change, its positive as well as its negative features. A philosophy of history that pointed toward moral progress guided their thinking. Yet at the same time they wished to improve the world in which they were living. Thus, on the one hand, early American sociologists were more or less convinced that progress and moral uplift would occur, yet, on the other hand, were concerned to take a hand in solving some of the immediate problems of life in a rapidly changing society. In dealing with the philosophy of history as it had come down from the fathers of European sociology, American sociologists had begun to deal with the problems of their discipline. In responding to their own reformist impulses they also began to deal with the problems of society. (p. 5)

Certainly, the strong interest of sociology in studies of social problems does not only concern American sociology. It also applies to a great extent to sociological traditions in which structural social mechanisms are the focus of attention, such as Marxist sociology. For many sociologists, the study of social problems meant that they also became involved in the practical work of social change. American sociologists worked with piecemeal engineering—that is, reforms involving small step-by-step changes—while Marxists entered into political action with systemwide changes as their goal. Much later, the tradition of action research was developed to combine sociological research with the practical work of change.

Study of social problems by social workers is self-evident. A great deal of empirical research is conducted by social workers within the science of social work. However, shaping a science of social work involves competition between social work and sociology (and, other social behavioral sciences). This competition challenges social work science to come out methodologically and theoretically strong in order to perform practice relevant and increasingly effective studies of social problems, and thus become able to define its research territory and gain legitimacy. The outcome is an open and empirical question.

The other relevant point of intersection between sociology and social work concerns the approach of these disciplines to social change and action for social change. From a historical point of view, attitudes toward social change and action for social change are controversial in sociology. Renowned social scientist Max Weber’s (1977) well-known essays “Science as a vocation” and “Politics as a vocation,” in which Weber argues that we must distinguish between scientist and politician roles, serve as a milestone in the debate on the ambiguity of sociology.

In social work, however, social change and action for social change are fundamental components. The task of contributing to and engaging with social change is a built-in element in social work. In a certain sense, social work is the work of social change. It is because of this aspect of the science of social work that the two terms are used synonymously in this article. We have already seen the rationale for the convergence of these two terms. In the from practice to theory tendency in the history of ideas, social work means quite simply action for social change. All production of knowledge has its starting point in social work as social practice. In that sense, action for social change is built into social work. The same aspect is also relevant in shaping a science of social work.

Regardless of which tendency in the history of ideas is taken as a starting point, it seems to be that the production of knowledge and the relationship of research to action for social change are characterized by nearness and immediacy in the discipline of social work. Social change is of natural concern to social work, and action for social change is taken as something natural to pursue.

The relationship of sociology to social change and action for social change, on the other hand, has always been controversial, particularly with regard to the latter. The various sociological traditions formulate different interests in knowledge and ascribe different roles to the researcher. Positivist sociology, for example, has adopted a technical–programmatic interest in knowledge production and prescribed the researcher’s role as descriptive. Marxist sociology formulates its interest in knowledge production as political and emancipatory, and regards the researcher as a participant in action for social change.

The early sociologists and social philosophers had a lot to say about what was right and wrong in society, but spoke very little about the role of sociology in terms of social change. The origins of American sociology, which to a certain degree coincide with the European classics, present another orientation for the social role of sociology. As I stated earlier, American sociologists were pragmatists; from the beginning, sociology was interwoven with studies of social problems and social reforms.

A Theoretical Frame of Reference

Two central variables of different aspects of social work are brought out in this article: the first is the development in the history of ideas in which the interplay between theory and practice acquires a prominent role. In this context, I have carved out two tendencies in the history of ideas: from theory to practice and from practice to theory.

Second, I want to illustrate the nature of the causes of social problems. Historically, two polarized concepts manifested themselves: society generates social problems and the individual generates social problems. It is both possible and productive to carve out ideal–typical variable values, and consequently perform a dichotomization for analytic purposes.

In my presentation, the two tendencies in the history of ideas have been refined with the aim of elucidating different working processes pursued by thinkers and practitioners. In reality, the relationship between theory and practice is complicated and constitutes one of the most central issues in the philosophy of science and theories of knowledge.

If, for analytical purposes, we refine the relationship between theory and practice, it seems to me that we can only do so in terms of tendencies. I have thus used the concepts of from theory to practice and from practice to theory as tendencies. By from theory to practice, I mean that research results and theoretical knowledge form the foundation of and support social practice, or action for social change. I have emphasized the primacy of theory and have sought to bring out its central role as a guide to the work of social change. But in so doing, I have not attempted to detract from the role of practice in its interplay with theory within the framework of the prevailing tendency. The same goes for from practice to theory, in which social practice, or action for social change, forms a foundation for the production of theoretical knowledge.

A word of warning is warranted at this juncture to remind us that modern social sciences and social work have already transformed themselves beyond this historical perspective. For instance, intervention research in social work typically involves from theory to practice and from practice to theory in the same context, as an intertwined and interactive process, in an unprecedented fashion.

Similarly, dichotomizing “origins of social problems” is pertinent in the perspective of the history of ideas only. It does not serve as an adequate analytical tool when applied to modern understanding of social problems. Modern understanding of causes of social problems is a continuous rather than dichotomous variable. Social sciences in general, and the science of social work in particular, perceive causes of social problems as a multilevel and interactive complex of variables. The “origins of social problems” variable has also been dichotomized, in spite of the fact that today we are well aware that the causes of social problems are to be found at a number of levels, and there exists a complicated and lively interaction between these multilevel causes. It is, however, historically justified to refine and dichotomize this variable. If we examine it from a history of ideas viewpoint, we see that thinkers and practitioners have thought and acted on the basis of the dichotomy “society is sick” and “the individual is sick.”

Those who have sought the causes of social problems in society have considered society to be sick. As pointed out earlier, this was a central idea among many 19th-century thinkers and systems builders. The systems builders often directed their efforts at total upheavals of society to develop better conditions of life for mankind. The most classical example is that of the Marxist analysis of society and revolutionary program of social change. But among those who believed the causes of social problems had origins in society itself, there was also an alternative strategy to the overhaul of society. Social changes through reforms, partial changes, or piecemeal engineering, as the English philosopher Karl Popper (1957) put it, was the other strategy. During the 20th century, references were gradually made to the environment, or the structural conditions in society.

The opposite view was to regard man as the source of social problems, and to seek the causes in individuals themselves. Psychopathological or moral defects in the individual were assumed to create social problems. In order to eradicate social problems, subscribers to this assumption believed the individual had to be cured by means of psychiatric, psychological, and moral treatment methods.

The variables chosen for the frame of reference incorporate two central, connected circumstances in the development of social science. The first variable, the interaction of theory and practice, refers ultimately to the knowledge-producing nature of the working process. In the interplay between theory and practice, we try to explain and understand social phenomena. When we consider that we have knowledge of a certain social phenomenon, either by charting the causes that explain the phenomenon or through an understanding that alludes to the social meaning attributed to it, we can go one step further in the working process. This step consists of attempts to change social reality, which in turn presupposes that we have a theory of what should be changed to achieve the desired effects. We can say that while the interplay between theory and practice has to do with the production of knowledge in general, the nature of the causes of social problems deals with what specifically should or is to be changed. In this way, the two variables are linked together as evidenced by history of ideas.

A dichotomized cross-tabulation of the variables “the development of the interaction between theory and practice in the history of ideas” and “the nature of the causes of social problems,” with the variable values from theory to practice and from practice to theory, as well as “society generates social problems” and “the individual generates social problems,” produces a four-field table (Figure 1). The figure illustrates the historical empirical relationship between scientific social analysis, social problems, and social change. As evidenced by the historical empirical study, the different fields of the theoretical frame of reference are not isolated empirical islands, but instead share a flowing interrelatedness (as illustrated by the arrows).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

The fields of history of ideas in social work.

The thinkers and practitioners who are considered to be the classics and pioneers of social work can be placed in the different fields of the table. However, it is not my intention to include every conceivable classic and pioneer. The aim is to give examples that are considered typical of the characteristics of each field.

Field 1 is characterized by developments in the history of ideas in which the predominant tendency runs from theory to practice. Here, the focus is on society as the generator of problems. “Sociology as agent activity,” Saint-Simonism, and Marxism are good examples of movements and traditions of thought that are placed in Field 1.

Field 2 is characterized by a movement from theory to practice. The causes of social problems are sought in the problem-generating individual. In the social sciences, mainly psychological approaches are located in this field of knowledge.

Field 3 is characterized by the predominance of the tendency to transition from practice to theory, coupled with the belief that the causes of social problems are to be sought in society. Jane Addams and the settlement movement are examples of pioneers who can be placed in this field.

Research for change, referred to previously, can be placed in any of these three fields, but truly belongs in the upper part of the four-field table, particularly in Field 1. However, against the background of external interaction between theory and practice in research for change, this type of research and practice in social work can be related to the lower half of the table, especially Field 3.

Field 4 is characterized by a predominant tendency to move from practice to theory, while subscribers to this theory believe the causes of social problems are to be found in the individual. A typical example is the Charity Organization Movement with Mary Richmond as a leading social worker.