View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Design-Based Practice: A New Perspective for Social Work

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Design-Based Practice: A New Perspective for Social Work
Language: English
Authors: Cohen, Burton J.
Source: Social Work. Oct 2011 56(4):337-346.
Availability: National Association of Social Workers (NASW). 750 First Street NE Suite 700, Washington, DC 20002. Tel: 800-227-3590; e-mail: press@naswdc.org; Web site: http://www.naswpress.org
Peer Reviewed: Y
Physical Description: PDF
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2011
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Adult Education
Descriptors: Evidence, Social Work, Caseworker Approach, Theory Practice Relationship, Inferences, Best Practices, Models, Social Services, Professional Services, Design Preferences
ISSN: 0037-8046
Abstract: Evidence-based practice (EBP) has emerged as an alternative to traditional social work practice and has ignited a new round in the decades-old debate about the relationship between knowledge and practice in the field. This article identifies several limitations inherent in the EBP perspective and argues that it would be unfortunate if EBP were to become the new paradigm for social work practice and education. It also presents a new perspective for social work called design-based practice (DBP), which is based on the work of Herbert Simon and Mary Parker Follett, and compares this perspective with EBP and authority-based practice. DBP rests on the belief that knowledge is derived from experience and interactions between practitioners and clients and that professional practice should be primarily concerned with "how things ought to be."
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2012
Access URL: https://nasw.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/nasw/sw/2011/00000056/00000004/art00006
Accession Number: EJ951071
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFoSBo9b2PK9Q_YKsbLevffAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDD-mmLC8k4e2UVXf8gIBEICBmtexMbNd1F5Syw0Seumm18msfzpSUw4UDodsb3dSskd7k8b38GdcPg-o0-DOmb1_6Uo8VUUrDawRn75YW14UzWquUKe5tNFmmkYlY_1d6sanTQsOrf39kMjqI7GaFZLH4aVK_fApT7wR399O15Hm5dJsPtCJVNDvaUECxgYXdLphwBd30twcfBJ6sWRQLUOjRXMR0YO9fuSDXL0=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0069822102;swr01oct.11;2011Dec26.07:01;v2.2.460</anid> <title id="AN0069822102-1">Design-based Practice: A New Perspective for Social Work </title> <p>Evidence-based practice (EBP) has emerged as an alternative to traditional social work practice and has ignited a new round in the decades-old debate about the relationship between knowledge and practice in the field. This article identifies several limitations inherent in the EBP perspective and argues that it would be unfortunate if EBP were to become the new paradigm for social work practice and education. It also presents a new perspective for social work called design-based practice (DBP), which is based on the work of Herbert Simon and Mary Parker Follett, and compares this perspective with EBP and authority-based practice. DBP rests on the belief that knowledge is derived from experience and interactions between practitioners and clients and that professional practice should be primarily concerned with "how things ought to be."</p> <p>KEY WORDS: complexity; design; knowledge; social work practice</p> <p>The relationship between knowledge and practice in the field of social work has continued to spark debate among scholars and practitioners (Gomory, 1997). Many have argued that only knowledge derived from science should guide practice decisions and behavior. This argument, in turn, has led to discussion about the meaning of science and scientific inquiry in the field of social work (Witkin, 1989). Over the past 30 years, this has been repeatedly played out as a debate between proponents of a rational/experimental view of science (Hudson, 1982) and a more existential/ heuristic model (Heineman-Pieper, 1989). Regardless of whether they have sided with one camp or the other, most support the view that the social work profession needs to continue along the path of becoming more scientifically based.</p> <hd id="AN0069822102-2">INTEGRATION OF KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE IN SOCIAL WORK</hd> <p>Witkin (1989) proposed a relatively "open" model of science for social work that would incorporate concepts and approaches to inquiry that "recognize and accommodate the complexities of human social life" (p. 96).</p> <p>Others (Goldstein, 1992; Lewis, 2003) have argued that knowledge is derived from practice and experience, and "practice should inform theory and not the other way around" (Goldstein, 1992, p. 49). This raises the question again of what type of science is appropriate to advance the state of the profession. A related debate has concerned the question of whether the purpose of relating knowledge to practice is to "solve a problem" of the client or to engage the client in a more continuous and creative process of discovery (Lewis, 2003).</p> <p>The most recent attempt to provide a framework for linking knowledge to practice in the field of social work is known as evidence-based practice (EBP). As defined by Gambrill (1999), in EBP "social workers seek out practice related external research findings related to problems clients confront, critically appraise what they find and share what they find with clients" (p. 348). According to this model, the practitioner then makes decisions with the client's participation and chooses courses of action on the basis of this systematic review of scientific evidence plus other factors. Support for EBP is widespread among academic social workers (Rubin & Parrish, 2007). Some have even proposed that EBP be adopted as the new paradigm for social work practice and education (Howard, McMillen, & Pollio, 2003).</p> <p>In this article, I argue that it would be unfortunate if EBP were to become the new paradigm for social work practice and education. Although there certainly is a place for using scientific evidence in the practice of social work, EBP is much too narrow a framework and is applicable to only a certain type of situation that social workers encounter. I present an alternative model for relating knowledge and practice that I believe is more attuned to the complexities of the contextual environment in which social work operates and to the challenges facing the field of social work in the future.</p> <hd id="AN0069822102-3">LIMITATIONS OF EBP</hd> <p>Although EBP has attracted many supporters in the field of social work, it has also raised a number of objections (Gray & McDonald, 2006; Trinder, 2000; Webb, 2001). According to Mullen, Bledsoe, and Bellamy (2008), many of the objections to EBP derive from the fact that EBP as a practice framework is "poorly understood by social work educators and practitioners" (p. 326), and they have proposed strategies to improve the teaching, dissemination, and implementation of EBP in a practice setting. I do not intend to address those specific limitations. Rather, I will address several fundamental reasons why EBP--even if it could be operationally defined, effectively taught, and implemented--does not represent the direction in which social work should be moving.</p> <p>EBP Is Restricted to Answerable Questions</p> <p>The first major limitation of EBP is that it only addresses certain types of questions or problems. Gambrill (2006) stated that the EBP process involves five steps, as first described by Sackett, Straus, Richardson, Rosenberg, and Haynes (2000):</p> <olist> <item> Converting information needs relative to practice decisions into well-structured answerable questions.</item> <item> Tracking down with maximum efficiency, the best evidence with which to answer them.</item> <item> Critically appraising that evidence for its validity, impact (size of effect), and applicability (usefulness in practice).</item> <item> Applying the results of this appraisal to practice and policy decisions. This involves deciding whether evidence found (if any) applies to the decisions at hand (e.g. Is a client similar to those studied? Is there access to services described?) and considering client values and preferences in making decisions and other application concerns.</item> <item> Evaluating our effectiveness and efficiency in carrying out Steps 1 to 4 and seeking ways to improve them in the future, (pp. 3-4)</item> </olist> <p>As stated in the first step, EBP is only applicable in cases in which the problem situation confronting the client or client system can be formulated as a "well-structured answerable question" (WSAQ). This raises the question of what portion of the problem situations faced by social work practitioners (at the individual, group, organizational, or community levels) can be formulated as WSAQs? The answer, in my opinion, is relatively few. I would define a WSAQ as having the following form:</p> <p>In situation S, with characteristics C<subs>1</subs>,C<subs>2</subs>,…C<subs>n</subs>, which course of action A<subs>1</subs>,…A<subs>m</subs> is most effective or efficient in achieving outcomes O<subs>1</subs>,…O<subs>p</subs>?</p> <p>In a WSAQ, the available interventions are already known at the beginning of the process. There is no opportunity to develop alternative courses of action that have never been scientifically tested. A WSAQ is similar to what Ackoff (1962) has called an evaluative problem in which "the alternative courses of action are completely specified in advance and the solution consists of picking the best of these" (p. 24). An example of an evaluative problem in social work, which can be written in the form of a WSAQ, is this:</p> <p>For elderly clients who are male, living alone, living at or below the poverty line, and depressed, which of three specified interventions A, B, or C is most effective at reducing depression?</p> <p>However, a developmental problem, according to Ackoff (1962), involves the search for a course of action that is better than any available at the time. How to design and implement a new approach to dealing with elderly male clients with depression is a developmental problem and cannot be written as a WSAQ.</p> <p>A WSAQ is also similar to what Rittel and Webber (1973) referred to as a "tame" problem because it can be well formulated, there is a definite set of possible solutions, and the solutions can be tested. In contrast, Rittel and Weber described a "wicked" problem as one in which the formulation of the problem is the problem. Problem understanding and problem resolution occur simultaneously. Therefore, one cannot first understand and then solve because understanding the problem implies knowing about its context. Rittel and Webber suggested that the social professions were misled into assuming that they could solve problems in the ways that natural scientists solve problems but were wrong because most social problems are inherently wicked.</p> <p>As an example of EBP, Gibbs and Gambrill (2002) presented the following problem based on a practice situation faced by a student social worker:</p> <p>The student, who worked at a nursing home, discovered that the home's future was in jeopardy. State inspectors had found it out of compliance with state and federal regulations. Inspectors warned that if the deficiencies were not corrected in 30 days, the nursing home would be given another 30 days to relocate all of its 135 residents, (p. 455)</p> <p>The student posed two questions that would then drive the rest of the EBP process. The first was" What is the effect of relocation on mortality rates in elderly residents of a nursing home?" The second was "If relocation is necessary, what is the most effective way to relocate elderly residents [of a nursing home]?" With regard to the first question, we would want to know more specifically the effect of relocation on mortality rates in elderly residents who move from a nursing home that is out of compliance to a nursing home that is in compliance with the appropriate regulations. Although it would be possible to compare multiple ways to relocate, taking into account research findings, client preferences, and clinical expertise, the second question, as formulated, is not an answerable question because it is not possible to identify the "most effective way" of relocating elderly residents, unless we can specify all of the possible alternatives and then compare them.</p> <p>It turns out that the formulation of a WSAQ is not always a simple matter. There may be several different questions that could be posed in a given situation, and the practitioner must be able to determine which are the most important to address. In the aforementioned situation involving the nursing home, a more important question may well be "How can we design a system for managing a nursing home so that it will never be out of compliance with state and federal regulations?" This question, of course, is not a WSAQ and therefore cannot be "answered" by using the EBP methodology.</p> <p>EBP Is Focused on the Past</p> <p>A second limitation of EBP is that it is focused on what has worked in the past. It seeks to identify strategies or interventions that have been shown to be effective through the best available evidence, with a preference for rigorous scientific experimentation and analysis. The knowledge that is produced through EBP is of value in making future decisions to the extent that the context or environment will remain the same as when the evidence was gathered. Unfortunately, the contexts of many social conditions are subject to rapid change, which could render the evidence obsolete. For example, child welfare practice in the late 1980s and early 1990s was greatly affected by the crack epidemic. Evidence that had been gathered about what works in dealing with abusing parents was quickly called into question as practitioners struggled to come up with new strategies. Because there were no rigorously tested interventions for addressing the problem of abusive crack-addicted parents, child welfare practitioners were forced to search for new approaches.</p> <p>EBP also does not address the need for innovation and creativity in the manner in which social services are organized and managed. Stoesz (1997), in a provocative essay on the potential end of social work if it does not adapt to a competitive postindustrial environment, lamented that social work professionals were not participants in the many experiments to "reinvent government" in the 1990s and seem to be "incapable of conceiving of viable alternatives to traditional bureaucratic methods of service delivery" (p. 370). EBP does little to address challenges that will be posed by unpredictable events and social conditions in the future.</p> <p>EBP Assumes Social Work Is Essentially a Problem-solving Practice</p> <p>A third limitation of EBP is that it assumes that the purpose of social work practice is to help clients in making decisions that will solve specific problems. The EBP methodology begins with a problem that a client encounters "that has a chance of a solution" (Sackett, Richardson, Rosenberg, & Haynes, 1997, p. 3). The five-step EBP process referred to earlier reflects the classic "professional practice as problem solving" paradigm in which "problems of choice or decision are solved through the selection, from available means, of the one best suited to established ends" (Schon, 1983, pp. 39-40). Once the problem has been articulated in terms of a WSAQ, the practitioner's task is to find the best available evidence, present it to the client, and use the evidence, along with other factors, including the clients input, to decide on a course of action. One difficulty with this approach is that the identification of the "problem," as stated earlier, is itself problematic. Often, problems are presented in terms of a preferred solution--for example, the need for parent education. If the client is not fully engaged in defining the goals or desired outcomes (the ends) as well as the course of action (the means), then there is a real danger that EBP becomes a way of supporting social work practice as "a context in which practitioners do something to clients" (Witkin & Harrison, 2001, p. 295). In his critique of the problem-solving paradigm in social work, Lewis (2003) stated that "when people are mistaken for the problems they evidence, there is a danger that one may view them as problems to be solved" [italics added] (p. 46); he went on to say that "in practice, a problem, far from setting the agenda to be worked on, in fact reflects an agenda already enacted" (p. 41).</p> <p>Another weakness of the problem-solving approach is the tendency to view a client's situation in terms of discrete problems that can be isolated and solved independently. As Ackoff (1999) has observed, in practice, "we are almost never confronted with separable problems, but with situations that consist of complex systems of strongly interacting problems" (p. 13), which he calls "messes." EBP seeks to address a single identified problem, rather than the total situation of the client.</p> <hd id="AN0069822102-4">SOCIAL WORK AS AN ARTIFICIAL SCIENCE</hd> <p>Herbert Simon, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1978, made significant contributions in fields as diverse as cognitive psychology, computer science, organizational decision making, public administration, and philosophy of science. His book The Sciences of the Artificial (Simon, 1981) provided a framework for understanding how advances in the study of complex social systems have posed new challenges for the preparation of individuals for professional practice in a wide variety of fields, including social work. Simon's arguments are critical to the challenge of creating a scientific basis for social work practice. He laid out the major differences between natural science and "artificial" science--or, in his words, "sciences of the artificial." Natural science is concerned with natural objects and phenomena that exist in the world, their characteristics and properties, and how they interact with each other. Physics and chemistry are clear examples of natural sciences. Simon has maintained that there is another kind of science that is concerned with artificial objects and phenomena, or those that are designed and made by human beings. The artificial sciences draw from the natural sciences but are different. They include engineering, medicine, nursing, architecture, city planning, and social work and are more commonly viewed as "professions." Each of these has struggled with the meaning and relationship of knowledge and practice within the profession and whether they can be truly regarded as "sciences." Simon's (1981) contention was that an artificial science is possible and can be specified and that doing so will enhance the growth and development of the profession.</p> <p>There are several major differences between the natural sciences and the sciences of the artificial. First, the natural sciences produce knowledge about natural objects and phenomena, about their characteristics, and about how they interact with each other. Examples are knowledge about the earth, the earth's movements, its atmosphere, and its natural resources. Artificial science produces knowledge about artificial objects and systems, particularly those that have purposes and goals and the capacity to adapt to their environment. Second, natural science is descriptive. It is concerned with describing how things are and how they got to be that way. Explanation, therefore, involves finding the causes of present conditions (for example, if you want to explain the behavior of x, then find the things that have caused x to behave the way it does). Artificial science is normative, or concerned with how things ought to be. Explanation of an artificial system also involves determining its functions and purposes (for example, if you want to explain the behavior of x, then find out what its goals and purposes are). Finally, natural science is concerned with analysis, with understanding how an object or system works by studying the behavior of its parts. Artificial science is equally concerned with synthesis, with understanding a system in terms of its relation to its environment and to larger systems of which it is a part. For example, suppose I want to understand the behavior of a child welfare agency. Using a natural science approach, I would develop detailed descriptions of all of its parts (administration, intake, ongoing services, support services, and so forth). If the agency or some of its parts were not performing well, I would try to determine how they got that way and how I could address the problems by directly addressing those causes. Using an artificial science approach, I would be concerned with how the agency functions within the larger child welfare system and in its community, in its purposes and goals, and with how it might adapt to better pursue those goals.</p> <hd id="AN0069822102-5">COMPLEXITY AND DESIGN</hd> <p>If social work practitioners operated in relatively simple and unchanging environments in which outcomes were predictable, EBP would be an appropriate paradigm for decision making and action. The reality is that the social systems with which social workers must engage are embedded in turbulent environments, in which dynamic processes arise from the interactions with other social systems and from changes in the environment itself (Emery & Trist, 1965). In discussing the future of social work, Allen-Meares and DeRoos (1997) noted the interdependency of the social work profession and the social sciences and supported the notion that "the major issues facing a complex society cannot be solved by decomposing them into small parts, but rather by attempting to understand these problems in their complexity and interrelations" (p. 379).</p> <p>An interest in how to respond to complexity and engage with complex systems has grown in the past few decades, as evidenced by the emergence of chaos theory or complex systems theory (Waldrop, 1992). Chaos theory has been used to develop a better understanding of systems that are characterized by periodic, nonlinear, dynamic, and transitional events. These systems generally cannot be understood in terms of linear or straightforward causes associated with particular outcomes. Although relatively ignored by the social work profession, there have been a few attempts to relate these developments to the practice of social work (Bolland, 1999; Hudson, 2000)</p> <p>One of the key principles of chaos theory is that small differences in initial conditions can lead to large and unpredictable differences in outcomes. To apply this to the practice of social work, if we accept that most social systems contain significant chaotic processes, the activity of predicting the outcomes of specific interventions becomes highly problematic because the slightest alternations in initial or intervening conditions can completely change point-in-time outcomes (Hudson, 2000). This means that an intervention that has been found to be "evidence based" will not necessarily have the same outcomes if there is a slight difference in who is applying it or how it is applied.</p> <p>A second fundamental principle of chaos theory, in contrast to its name, is that behavior that initially appears to be chaotic may sometimes be complex, self-regulating change that will result in new structures or systems that are subject to continued evolution and adaptation (Bolland, 1999). To the extent that these processes of emergence and self-organization can be fully understood, they may be important in helping social workers better understand the process of "resilience" in clients or client systems and may lead to new interventions that promote resilient behavior.</p> <p>In The Sciences of the Artificial, Simon (1981) stated his intention to use the concept of artificiality to help understand "complex systems that live in complex environments" (p. xi). His aim was to increase our understanding of how complex social systems can learn and adapt to pursue their purposes and goals. Rather than searching for root causes, the key strategy for managing complexity, and the concept that most distinguishes artificial science from natural science, according to Simon, is design. Artificial science addresses the concern with how complex systems ought to be by designing and creating a new pattern or state of being. In Simons words, design is "the principal mark that distinguishes the professions from the [natural] sciences" (p. 129) and "everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones" (p. 129).</p> <p>Throughout its history, social work has been concerned with creating a more desirable future by changing the existing and future conditions of individuals, groups, and communities through planned interventions in social systems and their environments. Viewed in this context, the social work practitioner can be seen as a designer who is concerned with helping clients make choices that will bridge the gap between their present situation and a desired future situation. Design should have a prominent role in defining social work practice.</p> <hd id="AN0069822102-6">DESIGN-BASED PRACTICE</hd> <p>Gambrill (1999) has contrasted two different approaches to relating knowledge to practice, leading to two different models of social work practice. In the first, which she called "authority-based practice" (ABP), the knowledge that guides practice is derived from "the opinions of others, pronouncements of 'authorities,' unchecked intuition, anecdotal experience, and popularity" (p. 348). Gambrill (2001) claimed that ADP represents a "deep thread of insincerity in the profession" (p. 172) that allows the profession to "pretend to be scientific" and appeal to people's trust with "no evidence that social workers possess unique knowledge and skills that produce better results compared to nonprofessionals" (p. 166). Gambrill used the term ABP to refer to conventional social work practice, which is clearly the predominant model of practice in use today. Despite her pejorative use of the term "authority," the case can certainly be made for the appropriateness of ABP in many settings and situations. Authority can be justified as a positive basis for practice in terms of the implementation of desired public policies and in the use of "agency function" as a mechanism for facilitating client movement toward growth and change (Dore, 1990). EBP, in comparison, relies on knowledge derived from the best empirical scientific evidence in making decisions affecting clients. EBP "involves integrating individual practical experience with the best available external evidence from systematic research as well as considering the values and expectations of clients" (Gambrill, 1999, p. 346).</p> <p>However, the choice is not simply between ABP and EBP. There is a third approach to relating knowledge and practice that comes from viewing social work as an "artificial science," viewing practice as a purposeful engagement between a practitioner and a client or a client system, and viewing social work practice as a creative process of design and integration whose aim is "discovery" rather than problem solving (Lewis, 2003). In this third approach, which I call design-based practice (DBP), knowledge is derived from interaction, experience, and integration involving the practitioner and the client system with the aim of creating a desired future for clients within the context of their total situation.</p> <p>In addition to the work of Herbert Simon, DBP also draws heavily on the work of Mary Parker Follett. Follett was a pioneering social worker, civic activist, and management consultant who was one of the founders of the school and community centers movement in Boston in the early 1900s. Although her name is not well known today, her writings and lectures formed the foundation of many of the concepts central to contemporary organizational behavior and human relations theories, including self-managed teams, conflict resolution, worker empowerment, and the sharing of power and authority (Tonn, 2003). Follett (1924) believed that, in contrast to relying on the advice of experts or the rational problem-solving process, problematic situations could best be addressed through a process that she called "integration," in which different experiences, activities, and perspectives are combined to produce a creative and unifying solution.</p> <p>The relationship between knowledge and practice in DBP is also derived from the work of John Dewey, a well-known philosopher, psychologist, and educational reformer, who declared that "all valid knowledge comes from experience, or the interaction between human subjects and their material environment" (Friedmann, 1987, p. 189). Both ABP and EBP view knowledge as something that precedes action and decision making, whereas in DBP, knowledge and action, or thinking and doing, are correlative and reciprocal processes.</p> <p>DBP rests on the following four assertions, which distinguish it from ABP and EBP:</p> <olist> <item> Knowledge is derived primarily from the engagement and experience between the practitioner and the client in their desire to change the reality of the client. In DBP, knowledge is derived from purposeful action that improves the client's performance with respect to specific goals. Through continuous cycles of action and evaluation, the practitioner and the client move closer to attaining a desired future. Although clinical knowledge and skills are also a part of EBP, and DBP decisions may be influenced by empirical evidence, DBP is guided more by the interactions and experience between practitioner and client.</item> <item> Social work practice typically occurs in the context of ill-structured and complex situations in which simple cause--effect relationships are insufficient to explain or predict client outcomes. ABP may be appropriate in situations in which the environment is likely to remain unchanged and the current outcomes are satisfactory. EBP is appropriate when the problem is well defined and alternative solutions have been vigorously tested. DBP is more suited to situations in which there are no simple root causes and the environment is unstable and likely to change.</item> <item> Practice is concerned with "what ought to be" and generating a course of action that will lead from here to there. In ABP, the alternative courses of action are typically restricted to what is currently available in a practitioner's setting. The criteria include what is authorized and what is expedient. In EBP, the alternatives are defined primarily by what has been shown to work in the past through scientifically controlled research studies while also incorporating clinical experience and client circumstances. In DBP, the alternatives are designed and continuously monitored, primarily on the basis of a shared perception of a desired future for the client. DBP may also incorporate knowledge obtained from EBP methods and research in articulating a desired course of action.</item> <item> The aim of practice is "discovery." In ABP, the aim is the efficient provision of services to those in need. To a large extent, this aim is reactive, or dedicated to maintaining the status quo. In the words of Witkin and Harrison (2001),"much of practice is oriented to blending into the mainstream, going with the flow of professional acceptability where the prevalent, if unspoken values and tasks center on diagnosing and treating people who are personally experiencing society's problems or coping with human conditions" (p. 296). EBP has as its aim the solving of client problems through a rational process based on causal reasoning. It also promises to provide the most efficient management of resources. In contrast, DBP aims to use a reflective and interactive process to help clients discover ways to create desirable futures for themselves in complex and ever-changing environments.</item> </olist> <p>In a series of lectures delivered in 1927, Follett proposed that there are four fundamental principles of human relations: evoking, interacting, unifying, and emerging (Metcalf & Urwick, 1940). She did not view these as linear stages but as one simultaneous process with different aspects. These principles, with some modifications, form the major aspects of DBP:</p> <p>Evoking--This aspect of DBP involves drawing out the perceptions, assumptions, and desires of the client, the practitioner, and major stakeholders with respect to the client's situation. It opens the way for expressing alternative futures and provides a foundation for integration and unification. Rather than formulation of a WSAQ or a "correct" conceptualization of a problem, the end result of this process is a shared appreciation of the situation in all of its complexity. EBP includes some processes similar to "evoking" in terms of incorporating client characteristics and circumstances, client preferences, and clinical expertise.</p> <p>Integrating--This aspect of DBP involves identifying the alternative representations or scenarios for action and then creating a unifying design through reciprocal interaction and mutual adjustment. The goal of this process is to invent something new or create a new situation, not merely to reach a compromise.</p> <p>Emerging--In this aspect of DBP, the client or client system begins to try out or experiment with new behaviors, organizational forms or structures that are consistent with the unifying design. In both direct practice and macro contexts, this will entail following through with actions that will lead to the attainment of individual goals and desired futures. "Emerging" also involves simultaneously monitoring the actual outcomes of actions and comparing them with the desired outcomes.</p> <p>Adapting--Because future states cannot be forecasted or predicted, and change is constantly occurring, the direction chosen will frequently require modifications or adjustments. This phase is called adapting, but it is more complex than the familiar notion of Darwinian adaptation. In Darwinian adaptation, a system responds to changes in its environment by changing itself or its behavior (namely, passive adaptation). In DBP, adaptation refers to changes that are initiated by a system to change either itself or its environment so as to increase efficiency or effectiveness, and it includes active adaptation as well (Ackoff& Emery, 1972). Active adaptation is more likely to be creative or innovative.</p> <p>These four aspects of DBP are applicable to direct practice with individuals or families and to macro practice involving organizations or communities. In comparison with EBP, in which intervention is primarily focused on how to make an optimal decision at a point in time with respect to an identified problem, in DBP the process is continuous, with the various aspects appearing over and over again. The aim of DBP is to help the client design an ongoing process for addressing systems of problems as they occur.</p> <hd id="AN0069822102-7">IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION</hd> <p>Interest in incorporating creativity and "design thinking" into professional education is growing. Many business schools--including Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, Harvard, and the University of California at Berkeley--have introduced courses in design thinking and strategy and some have partnered with existing design institutes or have created their own ("Tomorrow's B-School?" 2005). This interest in design does not appear to have surfaced in schools of social work. Currently, design thinking is not a part of the standard curriculum at schools of social work or a concept that resonates with social work students. On the basis of my experience teaching at a highly regarded school of social work, most students would be at a loss if asked to help a client system design a desired future state and a process for getting there, whether the client were an individual, a group, an organization, or a community. Students are taught primarily to describe, understand, and criticize systems, but not to design or redesign them. For example, students may be able to analyze and point out what they do not like about a specific agency (for example, that it has discriminatory policies, that its reward systems are unfair, that communication is poor, that its interventions are not producing the desired outcomes, that it is not well regarded by its community). However, they would have much more difficulty in painting a picture of what an agency that did not have these features would actually look like and how it might operate on a day-to-day basis.</p> <p>Traditional social work curriculums are primarily influenced by ABP. Students are prepared to engage in professional practice on the basis of "the advice of their colleagues and supervisors, personal experiences, relevant theory and authoritative texts" (Howard et al., 2003, p. 235). In the past decade, many social work faculty members have embraced EBP as the basis of a new paradigm for social work education, encompassing both direct practice and macro practice (Howard et al., 2003; Thyer, 2007; Zlotnick, 2008). In at least one school of social work, the faculty has adopted EBP as a new pedagogical paradigm "to guide its educational efforts with student practitioners." At this university, instructors of all practice methods courses were called on "to teach students about the interventions that have best survived rigorous empirical testing in their respective practice areas" and "curriculum modifications were instituted such that formal instruction in the methods critical to evidence based practice was integrated throughout the foundation and concentration level course work" (Howard et al., 2003, pp. 236-237).</p> <p>The movement to embrace EBP as a new paradigm in social work education will not prepare future social workers for the situations that they will increasingly encounter in practice. EBP assumes that social workers will be faced with WSAQs to which a step-by-step methodology can be applied. It also assumes that interventions can be found to address clients' problems for which there is rigorous scientific evidence. Both of these assumptions are not realistic in the context of the behavioral world that practitioners face today. Also, it assumes that social work practitioners will be in a position to choose from among a variety of interventions that will be available to their clients. This runs counter to the reality that is faced by many practitioners, particularly in the public social services. As an illustration, in the field of child welfare, the trend is for agency policies to more narrowly prescribe interventions on the basis of an assessment of a child's safety. A particular agency's policy might be that "if a child has a certain set of risks or safety threats, then the child should be removed from the home and assigned to a short- or long-term placement." The discretion of the Child Protective Services social worker is severely limited by such policy decisions and by the array of contracted services with provider agencies that are already in place. This is not to say that evidence-based knowledge has no value or place. A social worker may use evidence-based knowledge to try to convince a judge to return a child to the biological parents after a stay in foster care or to help determine which foster care programs or services are most appropriate. The primary task of the social worker will not always be to determine whether foster care is an appropriate intervention, because, in many cases, the client and agency circumstances may already have made this determination likely. In those cases, the task may be how to jointly develop an overall scenario or plan whereby the client system (child and family) can use the foster care experience as a step toward a more desired future, including some form of permanency for the child and greater strength and stability for the family. This is a matter of design.</p> <p>A starting point for developing a curriculum for social work education that is consistent with DBP would be to encourage the development of knowledge and skills in the four previously mentioned aspects of DBP: evoking, integrating, emerging, and adapting. Despite some potential similarities and overlap among the core subjects in the curriculum across the three approaches, the emphases would be markedly different. As an example, consider a course in child welfare policy and practice. In a school in which ABP was the predominant perspective, the focus would be on describing the child welfare system, how it evolved to be what it is today, and the specific policies and practices that are currently in place. In a school that had adopted an EBP perspective, the emphasis would be on identifying those interventions and practices that have been shown to be effective in improving outcomes in specific parts of the system (screening, foster care, in-home services, adoption) and, in other situations, how the best available evidence could be used to inform decisions. In a school that was influenced by the DBP perspective, the major emphasis would be on how practitioners and clients can design the system that ought to exist in the future and how service delivery would be different, what it might look like, and how we can move from here to there.</p> <hd id="AN0069822102-8">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>During the past decade, EBP has emerged as a new way of linking knowledge to practice and as an alternative to ABP within the social work profession. It has also been hailed as a new paradigm for educating future social workers. In this article, I have expressed concerns about the desirability of embracing EBP as the new direction in which social work should be headed. First, EBP, as currently conceptualized, is only applicable to situations that can be converted to a WSAQ. This limitation ignores the everyday reality that social workers face in both direct practice and macro-practice contexts. Second, EBP relies on knowledge about what has worked in the past, ignoring the likelihood that future clients and conditions may be very different. Finally, EBP assumes that the purpose of social work practice is to solve a client's problem, rather than to engage with a client or client system to design a desired future in which emerging problems or systems of problems can be addressed.</p> <p>DBP is presented as a new approach to social work practice in which knowledge is derived from experience and interactions between the practitioner and the client system. Based on the work of Herbert Simon, the concept of design is seen as being at the core of a new approach to science and the key to developing alternative strategies for responding to the complexity and uncertainty of a client's situation. Clients are seen as purposeful systems that are continuously defining their goals and adapting their responses and behaviors under changing conditions. In this sense, DBP is concerned with ends as well as means.</p> <p>Historically, social work has been concerned with the future and creating better situations and outcomes for its clients. Its practice should be focused on how things ought to be, not how they are today or how they were in the past. Social work practice has also been centrally concerned with the helping relationship and how it can be used as a vehicle for change. Rather than using this relationship to seek optimal decisions in attempting to solve isolated problems, social work practice should use this relationship as a foundation for engaging clients in designing their own desired futures and monitoring their progress.</p> <hd id="AN0069822102-9">REFERENCES</hd> <p>Ackoff, R. (1962). Scientific method: Optimizing applied research decisions. New York: John Wiley & Sons.</p> <p>Ackoff, R. (1999). Re-creating the corporation: A design of organizations for the 21st century. New York: Oxford University Press.</p> <p>Ackoff, R., & Emery, F. (1972). On purposeful systems. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.</p> <p>Allen-Meares, P., & DeRoos, Y. (1997). The future of the social work profession. In M. Reisch & E. Gambrill (Eds.), Social work in the 21st century (pp. 376-386). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.</p> <p>Bolland, K. (1999). Chaos theory: An alternative approach to social work practice and research. Families in Society, 80, 367-373.</p> <p>Dore, M. (1990). Functional theory: Its history and influence on contemporary social work practice. Social Service Review, 64, 358-374.</p> <p>Emery, F., & Trist, E. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations, 18, 21-32.</p> <p>Follett, M. (1924). Creative experience. New York: Longmans, Green.</p> <p>Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain:</p> <p>From knowledge to action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.</p> <p>Gambrill, E. (1999). Evidence-based practice: An alternative to authority-based practice. Families in Society, 80, 341-350.</p> <p>Gambrill, E. (2001). Social work: An authority-based profession. Research on Social Work Practice, 11, 166-175.</p> <p>Gambrill, E. (2006). Evidence-based practice and policy: Choices ahead. Research on Social Work Practice, 16, 338-357.</p> <p>Gibbs, L., & Gambrill, E. (2002). Evidence-based practice: Counterarguments to objections. Research on Social Work Practice, 12, 452-476.</p> <p>Goldstein, H. (1992). If social work hasn't made progress as a science, might it be an art? Families in Society, 73, 48-55.</p> <p>Gomory T. (1997). Social work and philosophy. In M. Reisch & E. Gambrill (Eds.), Social work in the 21st century (pp. 300-310). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.</p> <p>Gray, M., & McDonald, C. (2006). Pursuing good practice? The limits of evidence-based practice. Journal of Social Work, 6, 7-20.</p> <p>Heineman-Pieper, M. (1989). The heuristic paradigm: A unifying and comprehensive approach to social work research. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 60, 8-34.</p> <p>Howard, M., McMillen, C, & Pollio, D. (2003). Teaching evidence-based practice: Toward a new paradigm for social work education. Research on Social Work Practice, 13, 234-259.</p> <p>Hudson, W. (1982). Scientific imperatives in social work research and practice. Social Service Review, 56, 246-258.</p> <p>Hudson, C. (2000). At the edge of chaos: A new paradigm for social work? Journal of Social Work Education, 36, 215-230.</p> <p>Lewis, H. (2003). The problem with the problem solving paradigm. In M. Reisch (Ed.), For the common good: Essays of Harold Lewis (pp. 39-47). New York: Brunner-Routledge.</p> <p>Metcalf, H., & Urwick, L. (Eds.). (1940). Dynamic administration; The collected papers of Mary Parker Fallen. New York: Harper & Brothers.</p> <p>Mullen, E., Bledsoe, S., & Bellamy, J. (2008). Implementing evidence-based social work practice. Research on Social Work Practice, 18, 325-338.</p> <p>Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 155-169.</p> <p>Rubin, A., & Parrish, D. (2007). Views of evidence-based practice among faculty in master of social work programs: A national survey. Research in Social Work Practice, 11, 110-122.</p> <p>Sackett, D, Richardson, W., Rosenberg, W., & Haynes, R. (1997). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM. New York: Churchill Livingston.</p> <p>Sackett, D, Straus, S., Richardson, W., Rosenberg, W., & Haynes, R. (2000). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM (2nd ed.). New York: Churchill Livingston.</p> <p>Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.</p> <p>Simon, H. (1981). The sciences of the artificial (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.</p> <p>Stoesz, D. (1997). The end of social work. In M. Reisch & E. Gambrill (Eds.), Social work in the 21st century (pp. 368-375). Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.</p> <p>Thyer, B. (2007, October 16-17). Evidence-based macro practice: Addressing the challenges and opportunities for social work education. Paper presented at the symposium on improving the teaching of evidence-based practice, University of Texas at Austin.</p> <p>Tomorrow's B-school? It might be a D-school. (2005, August 1). Business Week, pp. 80-81.</p> <p>Tonn, J. (2003). Mary P. Follett: Creating democracy, transforming management. New Haven: Yale University Press.</p> <p>Trinder, L. (2000). Evidence-based practice in social work and probation. In L. Trinder and S. Edwards (Eds.), Evidence-based practice: A critical appraisal (pp. 138-162). Oxford, England: Blackwell Science.</p> <p>Waldrop, M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon & Schuster.</p> <p>Webb, S. (2001). Some considerations on the validity of evidence-based practice in social Work. British Journal of Social Work, 31, 157-179.</p> <p>Witkin, S. (1989). Towards a scientific social work. Journal of Social Science Research, 72(3/4), 83-98.</p> <p>Witkin, S., & Harrison, W. (2001). Whose evidence and for what purpose? [Editorial]. Social Work, 46, 293-296.</p> <p>Zlotnick, J. (2008). Evidence-based practice and social work education: A view from Washington. Research on Social Work Practice, 15, 625-629.</p> <p>Original manuscript received July 6, 2009</p> <p>Final revision received February 3, 2010</p> <p>Accepted April 20, 2010</p> <hd id="AN0069822102-10">COMMENTARY</hd> <p>Commentary offers writers an opportunity to present their critical observation on current professional issues, social problems, or policy matters. Submissions are expected to build on existing literature in the topic area. Send your manuscript (six double-spaced pages or fewer) as a Word document through the online portal at <ulink href="http://swj.msubmit.net">http://swj.msubmit.net</ulink> (initial, one-time registration is required).</p> <aug> <p>By Burton J. Cohen</p> <p></p> <p>Burton J. Cohen, PhD, is adjunct associate professor, School of Social Policy and Practice, University of Pennsylvania, 243 Haverford Avenue, Swarthmore, PA 19081 bucohen@sp2.upenn.edu</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ951071
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Design-Based Practice: A New Perspective for Social Work
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cohen%2C+Burton+J%2E%22">Cohen, Burton J.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Social+Work%22"><i>Social Work</i></searchLink>. Oct 2011 56(4):337-346.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: National Association of Social Workers (NASW). 750 First Street NE Suite 700, Washington, DC 20002. Tel: 800-227-3590; e-mail: press@naswdc.org; Web site: http://www.naswpress.org
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: PhysDesc
  Label: Physical Description
  Group: PhysDesc
  Data: PDF
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2011
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Adult+Education%22">Adult Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evidence%22">Evidence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Work%22">Social Work</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Caseworker+Approach%22">Caseworker Approach</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Theory+Practice+Relationship%22">Theory Practice Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inferences%22">Inferences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Best+Practices%22">Best Practices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Models%22">Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Services%22">Social Services</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Professional+Services%22">Professional Services</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Design+Preferences%22">Design Preferences</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0037-8046
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Evidence-based practice (EBP) has emerged as an alternative to traditional social work practice and has ignited a new round in the decades-old debate about the relationship between knowledge and practice in the field. This article identifies several limitations inherent in the EBP perspective and argues that it would be unfortunate if EBP were to become the new paradigm for social work practice and education. It also presents a new perspective for social work called design-based practice (DBP), which is based on the work of Herbert Simon and Mary Parker Follett, and compares this perspective with EBP and authority-based practice. DBP rests on the belief that knowledge is derived from experience and interactions between practitioners and clients and that professional practice should be primarily concerned with "how things ought to be."
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2012
– Name: URL
  Label: Access URL
  Group: URL
  Data: <link linkTarget="URL" linkTerm="https://nasw.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/nasw/sw/2011/00000056/00000004/art00006" linkWindow="_blank">http://nasw.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/nasw/sw/2011/00000056/00000004/art00006</link>
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ951071
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ951071
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 337
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Evidence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Work
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Caseworker Approach
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Theory Practice Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inferences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Best Practices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Models
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Services
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Professional Services
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Design Preferences
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Design-Based Practice: A New Perspective for Social Work
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cohen, Burton J.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 10
              Type: published
              Y: 2011
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0037-8046
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 56
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Social Work
              Type: main
ResultId 1