Professional Documents
Culture Documents
To cite this article: Steve Rogowski (2008) Social work with children and families:
Towards a radical/critical practice, Practice: Social Work in Action, 20:1, 17-28, DOI:
10.1080/09503150701872257
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
PRACTICE: SOCIAL WORK IN ACTION VOLUME 20 NUMBER 1 (MARCH 2008)
Steve Rogowski
Downloaded by [Columbia University] at 15:29 11 November 2014
Introduction
ask and continue to ask ourselves ‘whose side are we on?’ (Becker 1967): the
casualties of current societal arrangements, or the state apparatus aimed at
supporting the status quo? For the radical/critical practitioner it is the former,
and resulting practice entails empowering those at the margins of society thereby
leading to an understanding of the real source of the difficulties and problems
they face, the inequalities of wealth and power inherent in present society. This,
rather than being aimed at their adjustment to or acceptance of the status quo, is
a small but vital step towards changing society so as to ensure justice and
equality for all.
I begin with theory by outlining what I mean by radical/critical social work.
This is followed by brief examples of radical/critical social work practice drawn
Downloaded by [Columbia University] at 15:29 11 November 2014
On Theory
Payne (2005) provides a useful summary of social work theory, noting that
socialist-collectivist views, in essence radical/critical theory, see social work as
seeking cooperation and mutual support so that oppression and disadvantage, as
a result of ruling-class accumulation of wealth and power, are supplanted by more
egalitarian relationships in society. Radical/critical theory itself is linked to two
other strands of theory namely anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive perspec-
tives, and empowerment and advocacy.
Radical/Critical Theory
Concerning gender, there are various feminisms (see Beasley 1999). However,
it is the socialist view of feminist social work (Hanmer and Statham [1988] 1999)
that I comment on here again because of its affinity to a radical/critical practice.
Gender then is the basis of important life experiences for women and a women-
centred practice involves valuing women, ensuring space for them to get away
from caring and being dependent on men, and avoiding using conventional
assumptions that women’s ordinary behaviour (such as offending) is particularly
bad. Additionally, it is against the view that when men are involved in child abuse
the woman is in effect blamed for ‘failing to protect’ her children. More
radically/critically it involves the aforementioned conscientisation and critical
reflection, a dialogue between equals concerned with understanding dehumanis-
Downloaded by [Columbia University] at 15:29 11 November 2014
ing social structures and changing social conditions. All this sits well with
Dominelli’s (2002) structural view of feminist theory and practice and hence
radical/critical social work.
During the 1990s approaches developed that included all forms of oppression
as well as race and gender. For example, Thompson (1993) and Dalrymple and
Burke (1995) follow the radical critique of the failings of traditional social work
and argue for working in partnership with clients/service users, using empower-
ment and advocacy to make links between people’s personal positions and
structural inequalities.
Empowerment seeks to help people gain power over decision making and action
in their own lives, while advocacy seeks to represent the interests of the
powerless to powerful individuals and social structures. Empowerment, like
advocacy, does not necessarily relate to radical/critical social work, although
‘Marxist socialist perspectives generally seek empowerment as a means of
promoting contradictions in society, with a view to eventually seeking change’
(Adams 1996, 8). Mullender and Ward (1991) provide a useful self-directed
groupwork approach to empowerment based on people’s problems reflecting
issues of oppression, policy, economy and power.
As for advocacy, it includes acting and arguing for peoples’ interests in the
field of welfare rights (Bateman 2000). In the 1980s and 1990s it also became a
process of increasing the capacity of people with mental health problems and
disabilities to manage their own lives by defining their own needs and having a say
in decision making (Beresford and Croft 1986).
On Practice
1989 – 90), work with glue sniffers (Rogowski, Harrison, and Limmer 1989) and
work involved in developing community social work with children and families on
two deprived estates (Rogowski and Harrison 1992). Many of the practice theories
referred to above are in evidence, so let us look at two examples.
First, conscientisation/politicisation strategies were used. In dealing with
peoples’ problems, intra-/inter-psychic issues were not to the fore; instead, the
structure and functioning of current society, and all the resulting inequalities of
wealth and power involved, were seen as being the root of the problem. Thus,
young offending (including glue sniffing) has to be seen in terms of inadequate
educational and youth provision and access to meaningful employment
opportunities (for example, Rogowski, Harrison, and Limmer 1989; Rogowski
Downloaded by [Columbia University] at 15:29 11 November 2014
1992, 2003 – 04). Similarly, child abuse (now child protection/safeguarding), most
obviously in relation to physical abuse and neglect, can be seen as a reaction to
material stresses and strains, in short, poverty (Rogowski and McGrath 1986;
Mullender 1989 – 90) which in turn relates to inequality.
Second, in relation to community social work with children and families, this
involved a move away from a crisis, reactive approach in relation to children
and families to one which was proactive and preventative utilising group
(much of the work just referred to involved groupwork) and community work
methods as well as casework. In brief, colleagues and I were involved in
extensive advocacy with the (then) Department of Social Security and fuel
boards, empowerment strategies, in particular, with a single parent facing
complex difficulties, and work with estate forums which involved representa-
tives of various agencies such as Housing, Health, Police and Education. Instead
of individual or family pathology being the basis of intervention, the patterns of
relationships and power which define the family as problematic were the target
(Smale et al. 1988). Work with neighbours and the various agencies mentioned
attempted to shift the focus of blame from the family to the wider social
context of the street, the estate and society as a whole (Rogowski and Harrison
1992).
The reader, while perhaps accepting the radical/critical nature of the above
will perhaps argue that it took place some time ago and such practice is no longer
possible or appropriate. It is certainly true that coinciding with the ideological
changes epitomised by Thatcherism/Majorism and the Blairism of New Labour,
social work has had to cope with organisational change, financial cutbacks and
being forced into a more authoritarian/controlling role, not least in terms of
young offending and child protection/safeguarding. Additionally, social workers
have seen their autonomy and scope for individual initiative eroded. All this can
be related to the growth of managerialism and the changing nature of welfare
organisations (Lymbery 2004).
Managerialism
Managerialism dominates the way social work is now delivered, coinciding with
the economic, political and ideological changes of the last 30 years which
22 ROGOWSKI
instance, mentors, advisers and counsellors, all of whom carry out roles and
tasks which were the preserve of social work. Second, social workers themselves,
at the instigation of managers, now have to focus on targets, performance
indicators and filling in forms and questionnaires. Professionally led practice
based on knowledge, skills and experience, occupational identity and collegial
relations, autonomy and discretion have been replaced by a so-called
professionalism based on organisational rather than professional values empha-
sising bureaucratic/managerial controls, including budgetary restrictions and
financial rationalisations, and requires the standardisation of work practices
(Rogowski 2007). Social work, therefore, is in real danger of becoming little more
than a means of rationing services and controlling the working class or, as they are
now more often known, the socially excluded. Social workers also have less
opportunity for the face-to-face work with children and families with such work
as remains left to the aforementioned workers and advisers who, importantly, are
less qualified, cheaper to employ and far easier to control.
In short, New Labour seeks to micro-manage social workers. This entails
extending control over the processes and output of social work. More broadly,
when not simply monitoring and controlling the socially excluded, this
complements a political fixation with ensuring children and young people, and
their carers, are able to ‘fit’ into their allotted roles in a capitalist/free market
economy (Garrett 2003). Briefly, practice has been broken down into a series of
specific, technical form-filling tasks often so that services can be ‘costed’ prior to
being ‘delivered’ so as to be ‘consumed’ by ‘customers’/‘consumers’. Instead of
social work being a relationship-based practice it is being transformed into a
practice based on mere technical competences overseen by managers (Jordan
2007). Such managers, as opposed to the previous lead provided by senior social
workers and team leaders, are often preoccupied simply with whether forms and
questionnaires have been completed. There is little concern about actual social
work practice, even about whether the forms have been used positively, and even
less whether practice is radical/critical or not. Despite this, ‘critical analysis and
creative work need to take place in order to resist proceduralisation and the
imposition of bureaucratic constraints which frequently seek to produce
manageable, docile social technicians and compliant users of services’ (Garrett
2003, 140).
TOWARDS A RADICAL/CRITICAL PRACTICE 23
Although there are now fewer opportunities to engage in the group and
community orientated activities outlined above or indeed radical/critical
practice itself, this does not mean that the politicisation, consciousness raising
and critical reflection strategies cannot be carried out. One has only to recall that
the details and subtleties of the interactions that take place between social
workers and clients/service users are beyond the reach and control of managers.
There is also some scope to influence groupwork strategies on radical/critical
lines. And although child protection/safeguarding dominates much of social work
with children and families, some radical/critical possibilities remain, as they do
Downloaded by [Columbia University] at 15:29 11 November 2014
Groupwork Possibilities
Group and community work opportunities for social workers are diminished, but it
does not necessarily mean that such aspects of the radical/critical practice
cannot be carried out. For example, one might be faced with parents who are
having problems dealing with their children’s behaviour. It could well be the case
24 ROGOWSKI
that they would benefit from meeting with other parents in a similar position.
However, rather than simply referring them to ‘blame the victim’-type parenting
classes, one could encourage family or outreach support workers to establish
groups based on the more empowering and potentially radical/critical model of
Mullender and Ward (1991) by focusing on the external pressures that affect
parents’ care of their children. For example, the parents might be living on
benefits or working long hours for poverty-level wages, thus being tired, stressed
out and not being able to give the child the attention he/she needs. They may
even have succumbed to alcohol or drug misuse to alleviate their stress, again
this in turn impinging on the care of the child. In examining ways forward,
without detracting from the necessity of addressing immediate needs, the group
Downloaded by [Columbia University] at 15:29 11 November 2014
could look at the fact that a long-term shift in social and economic policy aimed
at tackling social inequalities was required if the problems and difficulties are to
be seriously addressed. In addition, groups on the aforementioned lines could also
be organised for children, young people and parents facing other, but in many
ways similar, problems and difficulties.
Conclusion
(Leonard 1997; Davies and Leonard 2004). For social work, this sense of
powerlessness and despair arises from the increased emphasis on bureaucracy
together with resulting loss of autonomy; in essence, the domination of
managerialism. But such pessimism must be resisted as it fails to take into
account the resurgence of social critique in the newer social movements like the
anti-capitalism/globalisation protests, a long way from social work as they may
seem. Such protests present us with the possibility of resistant solidarity leading
to a politics of hope rather than despair and for social work this leads to the
radical/critical practice outlined above.
Echoing Becker (1967), there is no such thing as a neutral professional and
although social workers are increasingly forced into the role of monitoring and
Downloaded by [Columbia University] at 15:29 11 November 2014
regulating the excluded underclass this does not have to be the case (Batsleer
and Humphries 2000). We do not have to be inevitably reactionary and supportive
of the status quo; emancipatory practice is still possible (Davies and Leonard
2004), entailing social workers practicing in the genuine interests of clients/
service users and to some extent challenging the hegemony of capitalism/free
markets. Alternatives can be sought to their technicist and instrumental role,
what to do and how; simply filling in the forms within a specific time scale. In
short, by engaging with theory radical/critical social workers can aid engagement
in collective action contributing towards a common good of ending inequality and
injustice.
References
Department of Health. 1995. Child protection: Messages from research. London: HMSO.
Dominelli, L. 1997. Anti-racist social work. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
————. 2002. Feminist social work theory and practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Ely, P., and D. Denney. 1987. Social work in a multi-racial society. Aldershot: Gower.
Fook, J. 1993. Radical casework: A theory of practice. London: Allen and Unwin.
————. 2002. Social work: Critical theory and practice. London: Sage.
————. 2004. Critical reflection and transformative possibilities. In Social work in a
corporate era, edited by L. Davies and P. Leonard. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Friere, P. 1972. Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penquin.
Garrett, P. M. 2002. Getting a grip: New Labour and the reform of the law on child
adoption. Critical Social Policy 22(2): 174–202.
————. 2003. Remaking social work with children and families: A critical discussion on the
‘modernisation’ of social care. London: Routledge.
Downloaded by [Columbia University] at 15:29 11 November 2014
Ghate, D., and N. Hazel. 2002. Parenting in poor environments: Stress, support and
coping. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Hanmer, J., and D. Statham. [1988] 1999. Women and social work: Towards a women-
centred practice. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Jordan, B. 2007. Social work and well being. Lyme Regis, Dorset: Russell House.
Langan, M., and P. Lee, eds. 1989. Radical social work today. London: Unwin Hyman.
Leonard, P. 1984. Personality and ideology. London: Macmillan.
————. 1997. Postmodern welfare: Reconstructing an emancipatory project. London: Sage.
Lymbery, M. 2004. Responding to crisis: The changing nature of welfare organisations. In
Social work ideals and practice realities, edited by M. Lymbery and S. Butler.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mullaly, R. P. 1993. Structural social work: Ideology, theory and practice. Toronto:
McClelland and Stewart.
Mullender, A. 1989–90. Groupwork as a response to a structural analysis of child abuse.
Children and Society 3(4): 345–62.
Mullender, A., and D. Ward. 1991. Self-directed groupwork: Users taking action for
empowerment. London: Whiting and Birch.
Parton, N. 1985. The politics of child abuse. London: Macmillan.
Payne, M. 2005. Modern social work theory. London: Macmillan.
Quinton, D. 2004. Supporting parents: Messages from research. London: Jessica
Kingsley.
Rogowski, S. 1985. Intermediate treatment: A critical appraisal. Youth and Policy 12: 21–
26.
————. 1990. Intermediate treatment: Towards a radical practice. Youth and Policy 31: 30–
35.
————. 1992. Groupwork for parents and their ‘beyond control’ youngsters. Youth and Policy
37: 47–49.
————. 2000–01. Young offenders: Their experience of young offending and the youth justice
system. Youth and Policy 70: 52–70.
————. 2001. Letter. Community Care 16–22 August: 12.
————. 2003–04. Young offenders: Towards a radical/critical social work practice. Youth and
Policy 82: 60–74.
————. 2007. Our eroding profession. Professional Social Work March: 14–15.
Rogowski, S., and L. Harrison. 1992. Community social work with children and families: A
positive step forward. Applied Community Studies 1(3): 4–20.
Rogowski, S., and M. McGrath. 1986. United we stand up to pressures that lead to child
abuse. Social Work Today 17(37): 13–14.
Rogowski, S., L. Harrison, and M. Limmer. 1989. Success with glue sniffers. Social Work
Today 21(9): 12–13.
28 ROGOWSKI
Smale, G., G. Tuson, M. Cooper, M. Wardle, and D. Crosbie. 1988. Community social work:
A paradigm for change. London: NISW.
Thompson, N. 1993. Anti-discriminatory practice. London: Macmillan.
Tuck, V. 2000. Socio-economic factors: A neglected dimension in harm to children. In
Welfare, exclusion and political agency, edited by J. Batsleer and B. Humphries.
London: Routledge.