Download System Theory and Terminology of General System Theory and more Lecture notes Social Work in PDF only on Docsity!
Systems Theory
B R U C E D. F R I E D M A N A N D K A R E N N E U M A N A L L E N
3
B
iopsychosocial assessment and the develop- ment of appropriate intervention strategies for a particular client require consideration of the indi- vidual in relation to a larger social context. To accomplish this, we use principles and concepts derived from systems theory. Systems theory is a way of elaborating increasingly complex systems across a continuum that encompasses the person-in- environment (Anderson, Carter, & Lowe, 1999). Systems theory also enables us to understand the components and dynamics of client systems in order to interpret problems and develop balanced inter- vention strategies, with the goal of enhancing the “goodness of fit” between individuals and their environments. Systems theory does not specify par- ticular theoretical frameworks for understanding problems, and it does not direct the social worker to specific intervention strategies. Rather, it serves as an organizing conceptual framework or metatheory for understanding (Meyer, 1983). As a profession, social work has struggled to identify an organizing framework for practice that captures the nature of what we do. Many have iden- tified systems theory as that organizing framework (Goldstein, 1990; Hearn, 1958; Meyer, 1976, 1983; Siporin, 1980). However, because of the complex
nature of the clinical enterprise, others have chal- lenged the suitability of systems theory as an orga- nizing framework for clinical practice (Fook, Ryan, & Hawkins, 1997; Wakefield, 1996a, 1996b). The term system emerged from Émile Durkheim’s early study of social systems (Robbins, Chatterjee, & Canda, 2006), as well as from the work of Talcott Parsons. However, within social work, sys- tems thinking has been more heavily influenced by the work of the biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy and later adaptations by the social psychologist Uri Bronfenbrenner, who examined human biological systems within an ecological environment. With its roots in von Bertalanffy’s systems theory and Bronfenbrenner’s ecological environment, the ecosystems perspective provides a framework that permits users to draw on theories from different dis- ciplines in order to analyze the complex nature of human interactions within a social environment.
RELEVANT HISTORY
Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901–1972), as mentioned above, is credited with being the originator of the form of systems theory used in social work. Von Bertalanffy, a theoretical biologist born and educated
in Austria, became dissatisfied with the way linear, cause-and-effect theories explained growth and change in living organisms. He felt that change might occur because of the interactions between the parts of an organism, a point of view that represented a dramatic change from the theories of his day. Existing theories had tended to be reductionist, understanding the whole by breaking it into its parts. Von Bertalanffy’s introduction of systems theory changed that framework by looking at the system as a whole, with its relationships and interactions with other systems, as a mechanism of growth and change. This changed the way people looked at sys- tems and led to a new language, popularizing terms such as open and closed systems, entropy, boundary, homeostasis, inputs, outputs, and feedback. General systems theory is likened to a science of wholeness. Von Bertalanffy (1968) advocated “an organismic conception in biology that emphasized consideration of the organism as a whole or a sys- tem” (p. 12). He saw the main objective of the bio- logical sciences as the discovery of organizational properties that could be applied to organisms at var- ious levels for analysis. This led to the basic assump- tion that “the whole is more than the sum of its parts” (p. 18). Von Bertalanffy’s approach is derived from a basic concept that relies heavily on linear- based, cause-and-effect properties to explain growth and change in living organisms. There are two con- ditions on which these properties depend: (1) that an interaction occurs between parts and (2) that the condition describing the relationship between the parts is linear. When these two conditions are pres- ent, von Bertalanffy felt, the interaction was mea- surable and was subject to scientific inquiry. Figure 1.1 depicts the linear nature of the system. There are inputs, outputs, and outcomes. However, what happens in the system is somewhat mysterious, and one can only measure the changes by observing the outputs in relationship to the outcomes or goals of the system. Workers can vary or modify the inputs, including their own actions, to create a change within the system. To measure the interaction, von Bertalanffy applied basic scientific principles to various types of
organisms that explain and measure behavior. It is important to understand that von Bertalanffy’s orig- inal conception of systems theory was one of orga- nization. He saw it as a method of organizing the interaction between component parts of a larger organism. Since it was a way of organizing informa- tion rather than explaining observations, it was easily adaptable to many different scientific fields, including psychology, psychiatry, sociology, and social work. The important distinction among the various fields adopting these principles was how they used other theories to explain the interaction within the organism. Thus, systems theory is an organizational theory that looks at interactions between systems: How a field defines the system determines the nature of the interaction. Von Bertalanffy was influenced by a number of sociolo- gists, and their contributions are important to social work. To understand more fully the interactional properties of systems theory, it may be useful to understand the key concepts used by von Bertalanffy and other systems theorists.
Other Contributions to Systems Theory
Von Bertalanffy was influenced by Durkheim and Max Weber, both of whom were early pioneers in the field of sociology. They took early systems the- ory as it was initially applied in the late 1800s and early 1900s to biological organisms and applied it to human social systems. Durkheim was interested in how societies were organized and how they main- tained cohesion or group identity over time. He believed that human beings experience a unique social reality not experienced by other organisms and that order can only be maintained through the consent of individuals within the group who share the same morals and values. In his 1893 doctoral dissertation, later published as The Division of Labor in Society, Durkheim (1984) explained that in highly organized systems, the division of labor contributes to the maintenance of societies. In com- plex societies, individuals perform various roles that, while they lead to specialization and segmentation, also create a high degree of mutual interdependence
4 FRAMEWORKS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE
of fit between an individual and his or her social context (Merton, 1938). These concepts are identified in Figure 1.1, where the system exists within a social environment. Thus, certain factors in the social environment affect the system and its outcomes and outputs. The system also interfaces with other systems or collateral sys- tems. There are expectations on the role and func- tion of the system to conform to standards within the larger social environment. If the system does not subscribe to those norms, then the system is consid- ered dysfunctional. Max Weber was a contemporary of Durkheim known for his work studying complex social institu- tions and organizations. In addition to being one of the first sociologists, he was a lawyer, politician, and economist. Unlike Durkheim, who believed that societies are sustained through consensus and the willingness of individuals to comply with normative expectations and roles, Weber believed that govern- ments and bureaucracies are essentially coercive in nature and are maintained through their “monop- oly” in the legitimate use of violence or force. He also studied the way in which various types of lead- ers may influence society. Because they are very often government employees carrying out the poli- cies of the state, it is important for social workers to be mindful of Weber’s position, that the best inter- ests of the individual or client system they serve may conflict with the interests of those in power. The work of Durkheim and Weber directly influ- enced Talcott Parsons (1951), who augmented their work by elaborating on the specific functions of social systems. Parsons was an American philoso- pher, economist, and sociologist interested in articu- lating a unified conceptual framework or “grand” theory for sociology. Parsons called his theoretical framework “structural functionalism.” Structural functionalism states that social structures involve interaction and relationships among “actors” and are characterized by a functional imperative. This is to say that a defining attribute of a social system is its function in the larger social environment. Parsons delineated four functional states of social systems: (1) adaption (to the external environment), (2) goal
attainment or growth, (3) integration (with other social systems), and (4) latency (homeostasis) or pat- tern maintenance (preservation of interactional pat- terns, norms, and customs through socialization processes). These states are not mutually exclusive but are integrated. Adaptation describes the dynamic process in which a given system responds to the demands and pressures of external forces and conditions. It also includes the way in which a system is able to bring in resources from its outside environment. Adaptation involves reciprocal interactions and exchanges between the system and its environment, which ultimately results in both being changed. When a system determines and prioritizes its goals and then obtains and mobilizes resources in directed action to achieve those goals, it demonstrates the function of goal attainment. Integration describes the coordination and orchestration of the system’s internal components. Finally, latency or pattern maintenance describes a system state in which the system is invested in maintaining and transmitting its norms and values ( Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology Online, 2009). Therefore, when attempting to understand and intervene in social systems, social workers must also consider the functional imperative of the system. Thinking of the function a particular system serves can help social workers to evaluate the extent to which the system is succeeding in fulfilling that pur- pose and to determine areas of weakness or dys- function that can be strengthened so that the organization functions properly and supports the individuals and subsystems within it. For example, if we examine the prison system, we might raise ques- tions about the function of prisons in protecting good citizens from criminals by their removal from society and institutionalization. We might then ask, does a higher rate of incarceration lead to a reduc- tion in criminal activity? However, if we argue that a function of prisons is the rehabilitation of offend- ers, we may then pose very different questions. What are the recidivism rates for released prisoners? How do they fare once they are released? How well prepared are they to reenter society?
6 FRAMEWORKS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE
Cybernetics is an interdisciplinary approach that grew in part out of structural functionalism and an interest in understanding how systems create and use processes to regulate themselves. Niklus Luhmann, a contemporary German sociologist, was, like Parsons, attempting to explicate a “grand theory” in sociology that could be applied to all social systems. For Luhmann, all social systems are communication networks, and a particular system selects what kind of information it will accept. This creates and maintains the identity of the system. When studying a particular society, Luhmann (1995) argued, its mass communications and media are its defining features. All social systems receive input from the environ- ment, engage in processes, and generate outputs. In addition to having a structure, social systems serve particular functions. The family is an essential social system with the function of socializing and caring for its members. Family systems theory looks at the dynamic processes of a family and intervenes to cor- rect or adjust maladaptive processes or structures (Bowen, 1978; Minuchin, 1974). One essential process for a family, as well as other social systems, is communication. As social workers, we often work to facilitate and clarify communication. Communication and information constitute an input into a system, a process occurring within the system, and an output in interactions with other sys- tems. Communication regulates and either stabilizes or disrupts a system. In the late 1950s, a group of mental health professionals in Palo Alto, California, began to use communication theory and cybernetics to study the origins of schizophrenia. Don Jackson, Gregory Bateson, and Virginia Satir, among others, recognized that communication patterns in dysfunc- tional family systems were disrupted. Although such patterns were not the cause of schizophrenia, as they had theorized, their contribution to family systems theory has remained an influential one. Bateson (1972) and Bateson, Jackson, Haley, and Weakland (1956) identified a particularly disruptive communi- cation pattern in dysfunctional families. A “double bind” occurs when an individual is placed in a no- win situation through contradictory instructions or
expectations. For example, when a child is told to “kiss mommy,” but her mother demonstrates reject- ing behavior, the child is placed in what is termed a double-bind situation. If she doesn’t follow the injunction to “kiss mommy,” she risks her mother’s displeasure. However, she also risks displeasing her mother if she does comply. Virginia Satir (1967) used the term metacommu- nication to describe “communication about a com- munication.” Such metacommunications may be made openly or implicitly by verbal as well as non- verbal mechanisms. The extent to which a message and a message about the message (metamessage) agree with each other is referred to as congruence or incongruence. Incongruence in communication may result in confusion and anxiety. For example, if a child is told that he performed well on a task but perceives through facial expressions or verbal tones that a parent may be disappointed, he is unable to discern the quality of his performance and the true nature of his parents’ approval.
The Terminology of General Systems Theory
Von Bertalanffy believed that all things, living and nonliving, could be regarded as systems and that systems have properties that are capable of being studied. A system is defined as “an organized whole made up of components that interact in a way distinct from their interaction with other entities and which endures over some period of time” (Anderson et al., 1999, p. 4). A familiar demarcation of systems in social work involves the designation of particular social systems as being micro-, mezzo-, or macrolevel depending on system size and complexity. Microsystems are understood to refer to small-size social systems, such as individuals and couples. Mezzosystems focus on intermediate-size systems, including groups, support networks, and extended families. Macrosystems focus on large systems, such as communities and organizations. This differentiation of systems by size can be somewhat arbitrary, depending in part on the social worker’s perspective as well as the organiza- tional context, and its purpose, in which he or she
Systems Theory 7
This modifying of levels of inputs and outputs is the form of control that all systems have in their interactions with their environment. In social work terms, an open system would generally (though not invariably) be considered a functional system, while a closed system would be classified as dysfunctional. A functional system interacts dynamically with the larger environment, a need that supports the sur- vival of the system. Because there is a cause-and- effect relationship between the system and the environment, both are constantly changing in conse- quence of this interaction, so that the open nature of the system is one of constant change. Change does not always relate to disorder. Von Bertalanffy (1968) believed that if a system was working properly, it would achieve a form of dynamic equilibrium with the environment that he called steady state. Steady state is achieved through a process of ordering and growth that von Bertalanffy referred to as negative entropy (Dale, Smith, Chess, & Norlin, 2006). The concept of steady state is a little misleading; steady here does not mean “constant” but a sense of balance between the system and the larger social environment (Anderson et al., 1999). To put it slightly differently, the ability of the system to adapt to its environment through changes in its structure leads to states of equilibrium and homeostasis, both of which relate to different types of balance. Equilibrium is the sense of being in balance. When something is in balance, there is little variability in movement before the state of balance is disrupted. On the other hand, homeostasis is a state of variable balance where the limits to maintaining balance are more flexible (Anderson et al., 1999). These limits are determined by the system and may be likened to the idea of something bending without breaking.
ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
The concept of ecological environment is credited to Uri Bronfenbrenner (1917–2005). Bronfenbrenner grew up in a state institution for the “feeble- minded,” where his father was the neuropatholo- gist. Prior to receiving any formal training in psychology, Bronfenbrenner lived on the 3,
acres of the institution, where patients spent their time working on the farm or in the shops. Through these early-life experiences, combined with his extensive study of the work of theorists such as Kurt Lewin, Bronfenbrenner developed a strong belief in the resilient nature of human beings. He regarded this resiliency as embedded in a cultural context that helped form and shape the individual. Von Bertalanffy’s model assumed a single- dimension cause-and-effect relationship between social units within the environment. Bronfenbrenner, how- ever, had some difficulty with the single-dimension relationship and felt that systems theory did not fully capture the complex dynamics that occur within social systems. In pure scientific situations, all aspects of systems can be carefully controlled for environ- mental effects. However, Bronfenbrenner (1979) observed that there are a number of additional envi- ronmental factors in human social systems, which he referred to collectively as the ecological environment:
The ecological environment is conceived as a set of nested structures, each inside the next, like a set of Russian dolls. At the innermost level is the imme- diate setting containing the developing per- son.... The next step, however, already leads us off the beaten track for it requires looking beyond single settings to the relations between them. (p. 3)
In essence, this view states that human develop- ment cannot be seen in isolation but must be viewed within the context of the individual’s relationship with the environment. In addition, each individual’s environment is unique. The “person’s development is profoundly affected by events occurring in set- tings in which the person is not even present” (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 3). For example, within the context of a family, there may be forces affecting the parental subsystem that trickle down to affect the children without the children even being aware of them. For example, if a parent is experiencing stress at work and displaces his or her frustration at home by yelling at the children, one may see how events outside the child’s immediate environment may exert a pronounced effect on the child’s development.
Systems Theory 9
When the concept of ecological environment is introduced into the formula of human development, the result is a complex matrix for defining behavior that not only includes “here-and-now” circum- stances but also involves understanding the historical and cultural factors surrounding the family as well as any biological concerns, hence the bio-psycho-social nature of ecological systems. Systems theory, as an organizational theory, can begin to introduce order to this complexity by lending it conceptual clarity. Figure 1.2 depicts a graphic configuration of the ecological environment. There are individual systems embedded within systems, and those systems interact in a three-dimensional way both vertically and hori- zontally. Thus, if the unit of analysis is the individual, there are other individuals (horizontal interactions) that relate to him or her. There are also vertical inter- actions. These vertical interactions may originate from “below” (in relation to individual biology), or they can come from “above” (in relation to family or community values or even social policies).
Ecological Systems Theory and Perspective
The juxtaposition of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological environment with von Bertalanffy’s systems theory
leads to the ecological systems perspective, which examines transactional relationships between sys- tems. Since von Bertalanffy and Bronfenbrenner developed their theoretical concepts for other disci- plines, the connection to social work was not readily apparent. Carol Germain has made strides in apply- ing these concepts to the social work profession. Germain was instrumental in adapting these two theoretical models to an ecological systems perspective with specific applicability to social work. She strongly advocated looking at the biopsychosocial development of individuals and families within cultural, historical, communal, and societal contexts, a perspec tive that requires us to look as well at all events in the person’s life. Social work ers need to go beyond the scope of looking at the individual and rely on public policy, practice, and research to gain the information needed to make an adequate assessment. Germain (1991) characterized the nature of relationships between systems as transac tional and “reciprocal exchanges between entities, or between their elements, in which each changes or otherwise influences the other over time” (p. 16). Such relationships are no longer linear but are circular, each system in the in- teraction affecting the others. The idea of behavior as a function is adapted from Lewin’s field theory, which asserts that an individual can be studied by examining that person in the con- text of his or her environment. This may be symboli- cally represented through the equation B = f ( PE ), where B is the individual’s behavior, a function of the interplay between person P and environment E (Lewin, 1935, 1976). Field theory adumbrates aspects of both Bronfenbrenner’s theory and Germain’s ideas regarding the person-in-environment. Early social science practice focused on either the behavior of the person or the environment, not the complex interactions between the two (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The ecological systems perspective, in contrast, is specifically concerned with the nature of such interactions between the individual (or group, family, or community) and the greater environment. A case vignette may help illustrate the dual nature of person and environment interactions.
10 FRAMEWORKS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE
Individual
Family
Family of Origin
Community
Internal Systems
Figure 1.2 Ecological Systems Model
12 FRAMEWORKS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE
stress, coping, power, and human relatedness as important concepts for understanding the nature of the interactions of person-in-environment.
ADAPTATION
Given the dynamic nature of interactions in person- in-environment relationships, adaptation is the central ecological concept. Adaptation relates to the cause-and-effect relationship between the person and the environment, with change as the inevitable outcome of the interaction.
Adaptation may be directed to changing oneself in order to meet environmental opportunities or demands, or it may be di rected to changing the environment so that physical and social settings will be more responsive to human needs, rights, goals, and capacities. (Germain, 1991, p. 17)
Adaptation as it relates to equilibrium would pro- vide a short list of choices, whereas in achieving homeostasis, the system would have a more exten- sive range of options from which to choose. The following case example illustrates the process of adaptation.
Sarah, a 95-year-old woman, had suffered from polio since the age of 2. Throughout her life, she constantly fought both her own body and her inability to access the larger sys- tems that society had to offer. Sarah had undergone a number of spinal fusion procedures that temporar- ily alleviated some of her more distressing polio symptoms, helping her to adapt somewhat more successfully to the environment. But Sarah did not stop there. As an early activist, she became involved in bringing about awareness of the plight of disabled individuals. She served on her local town’s disabilities committee, and when the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in 1990, she became the director of the town’s commission on disabilities. She was recognized as the person who fought for and got the curb cuts installed in the town. Although confined to a wheelchair because of her polio, Sarah continued to be an active leader in helping busi- nesses in the town become more accessible to the dis abled. When Sarah’s husband died, she might have become reclusive, since in many respects he was her link to the outside world, chauffeuring her to meetings and oth erwise helping her remain connected to the world outside their home. However, because she was able to identify and develop strengths and to adapt to her environ mental milieu by using the resources she had helped create, Sarah remained active and involved.
LIFE STRESS
Person-in-environment interaction leads to a normal tension, also referred to as life stress. Whenever dif- ferent entities interact with each other, the ebb and flow between them creates some friction. The sys- tem’s need to continue to adapt and achieve a state of homeostasis is itself a source of stress:
Life stress encompasses both the external demand and the internal (conscious and unconscious) experience of stress, including both emotional and physiological elements. What is perceived as
stressful varies across age, gender, culture, physi- cal and emotional states, past experience, and the perceived and actual nature of the environment. (Germain, 1991, p. 20)
In other words, two people in exactly the same envi- ronmental situation may have different experiences owing to their differing perceptions of that situation. For one it may be comparatively stressful, while for the other it could be comparatively stress-free. Irrespective of the unit of analysis—individual, couple, family, group, or community—the ecosystems
perspective is applied in essentially the same fashion, as the following example will illustrate. A group of previously married individuals, Center Singles, consisting of persons in their mid- 30s to mid-50s, provided a variety of functions for its members. For some the group symbolized a social outlet, for others it was purely educational, and for still others the group was a means of social support. This was possible since the group’s goals
were global, with a central focus on the problem of being single again following a divorce or the death of a member’s spouse. The global nature of the group’s goal was an attraction, since in all likeli- hood more specific goals would have limited its membership. As a consequence, there were signifi- cant differences among group members that repre- sented each person’s capacity to cope with that particular life stress.
Coping
The ability to cope requires both problem solving—what needs to be done to manage stress— and the ability to regulate negative feelings. The out- come of these factors leads to increased self-esteem, which helps diminish the negative feelings caused by a particular stressor. For a person to cope successfully with stress, the individual must partially block out negative feelings “so that hope is maintained and some problem solving can begin. As problem solving proceeds, self-esteem is elevated, hope is strengthened, and the defenses that
were needed at the outset begin to relax” (Germain, 1991, p. 22). Each individual deals with life stress along a continuum in which adaptive coping and mal- adaptive defenses constitute the extremes. The locus of the stress is an external source; how- ever, the need to cope and to develop defenses arises from the internal anxiety created by an external stressor. Each person relies on his or her own strengths to cope with stressful situations. When people feel as though their resources have been tapped, their coping ability is reduced, and mal- adaptive defenses may predominate.
Systems Theory 13
Two group members will be used as further illustration of this concept. Susan was in her mid-40s and had three children, ranging in age from 14 to 18. Susan’s husband had recently told her that he wanted a divorce, to which Susan reacted with surprise and anger. She felt unable to function and had problems con centrating on simple tasks such as addressing envelopes. She was constantly on the verge of tears. Elaine was also in her mid-40s. She had four children, ranging in age from 13 to 21. When her husband told her that he wanted a divorce, the first thing she did was to look at the want ads and find a job. Both Susan and Elaine were motivated to join the group for similar reasons, yet each dealt with this life stress dif ferently.
Laurie, a 40-year-old single mother of six, had a history of using drugs and alcohol to cope with the stressors in her life. She needed to supplement her income since the amount that she was earning was not sufficient to feed her family. She began working as a topless dancer but relied on drugs to diminish the shame and anxiety such work stirred up in her. As her financial situation worsened, she supplemented her meager income by performing lap dances and prostituting herself. Increasingly desperate, she turned to shoplifting and passed several bad checks. By the time Laurie sought help through the Welfare-to-Work program, she had a long rap sheet with multiple convictions for shoplifting, passing bad checks, and welfare fraud and had already spent some time in jail. (Continued)
assessment process. Such tools can also significantly shorten the traditional case-recording process (Holman, 1983; Sheafor & Horejsi, 2008).
Genogram
The genogram is similar to a family tree. It can describe family relationships in as many generations as the worker and the client wish but is typically lim- ited to three generations. The genogram provides a
historical overview of the family and is a useful way of obtaining a sense of the client’s historical milieu. By involving the client in helping identify each gener- ation and the characteristics of the people within it, visual pieces of data are created that can be used to great advantage in the assessment process. Such data provide a picture that can often be used by the client to identify previously hidden patterns. Once these historical patterns emerge, the client is much better equipped to develop strategies for behavioral change.
Systems Theory 15
Karen, 42 years old, had been married and divorced three times and was involved in a relationship with a man addicted to drugs and alcohol. A genogram helped Karen and her worker understand that all the men in Karen’s life—her grandfather, father, and previous husbands—had been substance abusers with depressive personalities just like that of the man in her current relationship (see Figure 1.3).
Ecomap
Whereas the genogram identifies the historical ecology of the client, the ecomap identifies the client’s current social context. The ecomap
works by using circles to represent different fac- tors affecting the client and by identifying other systems that have an interface with the client sys- tem. An ecomap of a family can also identify the
Married 1920 Died alcoholism 1955
Died alcoholism 1975
Substance abuse
Born 1971
Female Married Separated Divorced In relationship
Male Deceased
Sibling
Born 1973
Married 1972 Divorced 1982
Married 1984 Divorced 1986
Married 1987 Divorced 1989
Institutionalized depression 1962 Married 1948 Separated 1960
K 42
Figure 1.3 A Genogram of a Client’s Relationships
16 FRAMEWORKS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE
Figure 1.4 Ecomap
His brother’s family Health Care
Church
School
H’s parents
P 8
D 45 H 39
Separated Long Island, NYD’s family,^1986
exosystems, or those systems that affect other family members but do not have a direct impact on the identified client. The ecomap is con- structed by having the client identify all the orga- nizations that have some impact on his or her life. Each organization is depicted by a circle. The client then identifies the nature and direction
of the flow of energy between the organization and self. Because this process meaningfully involves the client in identifying the current situ- ation and pictorially expressing it through the ecomap, the client may develop a better under- standing of his or her situation and ultimately reveal strategies for resolving the dilemma.
Helen was a 39-year-old single mother who had recently moved into the community but continued to have strong ties to her former residence. Her 8 -year-old daughter was experiencing problems resulting from the girl’s father’s decision to move out of the country. An ecomap helped the mother identify resources and supports in her new community (see Figure 1.4).
18 FRAMEWORKS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE
Neighbors
Family/ Relatives Mother- Stepfather
John
AA
Operation Hope Captain Professional Caregivers
Chevy Dealership Work/Social Associates
Friends
Marc 40
Figure 1.5 Social Network Map
ID _________ Respondent
Name #
Areas of Life
- Household
- Other family
- Work/school
- Organizations
- Other friends
- Neighbors
- Professionals
- Other
Concrete Support
- Hardly ever
- Sometimes
- Almost always
Emotional Support
- Hardly ever
- Sometimes
- Almost always
Information/ Advice
- Hardly ever
- Sometimes
- Almost always
Critical
- Hardly ever
- Sometimes
- Almost always
Direction of Help
- Goes both ways
- You to them
- Them to you
Closeness
- Not very close
- Sort of close
- Very close
How Often Seen
- Few times
- Monthly
- Weekly
- Daily
- Does not see
How Long Known
- Less than 1 yr.
- 1–5 yr.
- More than 5 yr. Operation Hope 01 7 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 1 John 02 5/6 2 3 3 2 1 3 4 1 Chevy Dealership
03 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 4 1
AA 04 7 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 Mother 05 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 3 Stepfather 06 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 3 Capital 07 5 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 2 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 1–6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
believed that the best method of analysis was to break down this interaction into its component parts— adaptation, life stress, coping, power, and human relatedness—to gain a clearer picture of client strengths. All systems interact with the environment as both causes and effects of a given situation, and it is important for the worker to understand fully the dynamic nature of this interaction. Just how the social worker chooses to gain that knowledge is left to the worker, since the ecosystems perspective does not dic- tate which tools to use but relies on the creativity of each worker to assess fully the dynamics of person-in- environment interaction. Three specific tools—the genogram, the ecomap, and the social network map—were presented as methods for acquiring that knowledge. These tools demonstrate the variety of techniques that can be used to gain information about different aspects of systemic interaction. The more knowledge the worker has about person-in-environment interaction, the better informed he or she is and the better able to identify system strengths that will enhance or restore the client’s social functioning.
REFERENCES
Anderson, R. E., Carter, I., & Lowe, G. R. (1999). Human behavior in the social environment (5th ed.). New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Barker, R. L. (1995). The social work dictionary. Washington, DC: NASW Press. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. San Francisco: Chandler. Bateson, G., Jackson, D. D., Haley, J., & Weakland, J. (1956). Toward a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioral Science, 1, 251–264. Bertalanffy, L. von. (1968). General system theory: Foundation, development, application. New York: George Braziller. Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology online. (2009). Retrieved March 29, 2009, from www.sociolo gyen cyclopedia.com Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human devel- opment: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dale, O., Smith, R., Chess, W. A., & Norlin, J. M. (2006). Human behavior in the social environment: A social systems model. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Durkheim, É. (1984). The division of labor in society (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan. Fook, J., Ryan, M., & Hawkins, L. (1997). Toward a the- ory of social work expertise. British Journal of Social Work, 27, 399–417. Friedman, B. D. (1994). No place like home: A study of two homeless shelters. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International. Germain, C. B. (1991). Human behavior in the social environment: An ecological view. New York: Columbia University Press. Goldstein, H. (1990). The knowledge base of social work practice: Theory, wisdom, analogue, or art? Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 71 (1), 32–43. Gottlieb, B. (1983). Social support strategies: Guidelines for mental health practice. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Greene, R. R. (2000). Human behavior theory and social work practice (2nd ed.). Edison, NJ: Aldine Transactions. Hearn, G. (1958). Theory-building in social work. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Holman, A. M. (1983). Family assessment: Tools for under- standing and intervention. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lewin, K. (1976). Field theory as human science. New York: Gardner Press. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3 (5), 672–682. Meyer, C. H. (1976). Social work practice (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press. Meyer, C. H. (Ed.). (1983). Clinical social work in the eco-systems perspective. New York: Columbia University Press. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Boston: Harvard University Press. Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Glenco, IL: Free Press. Robbins, S. P., Chatterjee, P., & Canda, E. R. (2006). Contemporary human behavior theory: A critical perspective for social work (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Satir, V. (1967). Conjoint family therapy: A guide to the- ory and technique. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.
Systems Theory 19
