ERASMUS MOBILITY

1. NEW APPROACHES TO SOCIAL INTERVENTION
- THE APPLICATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE: A
CHALLENGE AND CURRENT DYNAMIC IN SOCIAL WORK-
Helena Neves Almeida1
There are many theoretical benchmarks for social intervention, and these
are as varied as the contexts, purposes and subjects involved in action.
Different kinds of knowledge are at issue: theoretical knowledge, which helps us
to identify facts and to understand the factors concerned, as well as their
influence in the life situations indicated; and practical knowledge, which is know-
how, knowledge that calls on skills, expertise and attitudes. Even though this is
associated with, and reflects theoretical knowledge, it nonetheless has a distinct
visibility within the process (for example, in compiling reports, conducting
interviews, providing guidance, communicating clearly, listening, and dialogue).
Finally there is axiological knowledge which, embracing theory and practice, is
imbued with values. Social work should not try to compartmentalize the impact
of action, since when they do so, they are deceiving themselves (De Bruyne,
Herman and Schoutheete, 1991; Banks, 1995). The three fields are
interdependent and interact in the everyday practice of intervention.
Social work has provided the setting for various theoretical incursions,
which have not always been appropriate to social reality. This has been broadly
recognized since the second half of the 1960s. The call for the indigenization of
1
Assistant Professor at the Instituto Superior Bissaya-Barreto (Coimbra), PH.D. in Social Work.
Helena Neves Almeida
26-01-01

2. social work, that is, for an effort to construct knowledge and apply models
designed on the basis of the reality of each social training (Kahn, 1970), bears
witness to this fact. If it is true that such a call has the advantage of avoiding the
mistakes committed in other countries, the low investment in the domain of
action-research has relegated the field of intervention to a position of isolation
and dependency in relation to the theoretical production of the social and
human sciences.
Research into the use of theories in practice suggests that the latter rarely
employs a particular, identifiable theory, but rather a “practical theory” (Banks,
1995, 52), that is, knowledge gained from practice and from parts of the
theoretical corpora, and skills acquired from work (Curnock and Hardicker,
1979; Roberts, 1990). The activities and roles are so varied, and the contexts
so wide-ranging, that it is hard to establish a single theoretical corpus for social
work. Banks defines social work as “a knowledge of theoretical or practical
comprehension of certain branches of science, art, learning or other area of
study”, and, in this regard, social workers have a panoply of theories that
influence their reflective practice (Schön, 1987) and performance (Ronnby,
1992). In this logic, social workers are restricted to being mere users of
knowledge. They are not seen as producers of new learning.
The question then is to know the relationship between theory and practice
in the intervention process, and what the arguments are in this context.
Helena Neves Almeida
26-01-01

3. 1 – The relationship between theory and practice in the process of
social work
There are several studies showing that social workers devise and retain models
during their practical work, despite the difficulties they have in identifying them.
In 1979, Carew conducted a study on 20 social workers in the north of England,
and this showed that not many were using theory explicitly during the course of
their work, but a lot were using it without realizing it, as a system rather than as
an explicit guide to action. Most said they had acquired a series of skills from
practice, which allowed them to develop procedures suited to the problems
presented by clients. Another study, carried out by Barbour in 1984, on 20
students, not only identified two perspectives of the use of theory (one
supportive and the other curative), but also made it possible to identify three
groups of situations:
a) students who had acquired general ideas and methods, but who could not
say where they had come from, were unable to locate them on the theory
plane;
b) students who would use the particular theories they regarded as relevant,
with each student creating a ‘stock’, a collection of professional tools to be
used, and
c) students whose use of knowledge was linked to their personality. The use
of theory in practice thus raises certain questions.
Helena Neves Almeida
26-01-01

4. In this domain, there are three prominent arguments (Payne, 1994):
The pragmatic argument, the positivist argument and eclecticism.
• The pragmatic argument holds that there is a confused mass of theories,
mostly imported from different social, economic and political contexts, and of no
useful relevance. The obstacles to practical application have various origins,
among which the following stand out: the generalist nature of some theories,
which hampers their using in specific practical actions, and the existence of a
high degree of competition between theories, making it difficult to choose a
particular one. According to the pragmatic argument, there are three distinct
traditions.
a) the pragmatic tradition associated with social work in official services
(Poor Law, Social Security), whose economic support component is
fundamental;
b) the socialist tradition that embraces social reforms, social criticism and
collective intervention (such as groups and communities);
c) the therapeutic tradition related to individuals and groups who have
personal problems and social difficulties.
Keeping these approaches in mind, different practices reflect the
influence of sundry theoretical benchmarks from the social and human
sciences, particularly sociology and psychology, such as: theories of
communication; theories of change; theories of conflict; psychodynamic theories
Helena Neves Almeida
26-01-01

5. of the personality; behavioral theories; cognitive theories; systems theory,
among others. This fact makes it difficult for social workers to use them.
• The positivist argument2 argues that many theories are insufficiently
rigorous and do not constitute true theories, since they describe and raise
hypotheses, but do not have an explicative power based on empirical
references. According to this perspective, the comprehension of human activity
should be based on the methods of the natural sciences, and therefore predict
behaviours on the basis of experimental methods and statistical tests.
• Eclecticism focuses its attention on the possibility of using a
combination of several theories at the same time. By this argument, clients
ought to be able to benefit from all the knowledge available, since the theories
belong to various disciplinary domains, or may work on different levels. This
fact underpins the argument that it should be possible to make use of different
theories, in combined way.
2
According to De Bruyne (1984) positivism accepts that: 1 – the social world is inaccessible, only the
world of facts is scientifically analysable; 2 – the subjective world (conscience, intuition and values)
eludes science; 3 – external observation is the sole guide, with comprehension and introspection being
rejected due to lack of control; 4 – the notion of general law lies at the center of the positivist program,
which aims to discover and confirm general laws. The individual in itself is of no interest and has no
signification; 5 –knowledge of essential structure and fundamental and final causes is illusory. True
knowledge is the fruit of the capacity to predict events that belong to the sphere of pertinence of the laws
it has established. Erickson (1986) holds that the positivist paradigm is rooted in the postulate of the
Helena Neves Almeida
26-01-01

6. 2 – What consideration should we give to such arguments?
What concerns to the pragmatic argument, if we consider that theory is
socially constructed and that it often corresponds to the need to respond to
questions and problems encountered in various institutions (Grawitz, 1986,
331), then theory and practice are not separate universes. Theory may be
useful in replenishing practices, and practice, taken as a sphere of interaction
for a multiplicity of factors, such as context, demand and actors, is essential to
the construction of new knowledge. If the question is put at the level of capacity
for prescription, then it is best to say that everything that we do is theoretical
(Howe, 1987).
The positivist argument is also fallacious. The 1960s saw the
emergence of new epistemological orientations which, influenced by the
Weberian tradition, value the subjective and significative nature of the actors’
actions. According to the interpretative / comprehensive paradigm, relations
between the behaviors and the significations that the actors ascribe to them,
vary through their social interactions, and so different significations may
correspond to identical behaviors (Lessard-Herbert; Goyette and Boutin, 1994)3.
uniformity of social life. Positivist orientation values an “axiological neutrality” towards action and
favours the values of rationality, rigour and efficacy (Groulx, 1984).
3
The authors cited have characterised the interpretative paradigm as an orientation based on the dualist
ontological postulate (reality is simultaneously materialist and spiritualist), with a social dimension which
values the spatial and temporal context (significations vary in terms of specific groups of individuals,
who, through their interactions, share determined comprehensions and traditions particular to this
environment, which differs from one group to another). From the ontological standpoint, the uniformity
of social life is apparent, even though it constitutes an epistemological category that is necessary for
interpreting the world.
Helena Neves Almeida
26-01-01

7. The interpretative paradigm ensures a kind of continuity relative to the wisdom
of common sense. The learning of common sense that all subjects have with
respect to their reality, history and environment form the basis for knowledge of
social realities. This presupposition does not imply a breach with the common
sense advocated by positivism, but a continuity between that and scientific
learning. In this context, the everyday world comes to be valued as a source of
knowledge, influenced by the phenomenological stream of Husserl. This new
approach allows the familiar to become strange, and explains what is implicit.
Everyday life eludes us because it is very familiar, because of the ties of
proximity that make it hard for us to analyze them. The interpretative /
comprehensive paradigm allows us to understand particular situations, by
means of concrete elements of practice; it enables us to consider the
significations that subjects ascribe to events and to the contextual conditions of
existence.
This epistemological orientation is centered on the comprehension of, and
not on the explanation (determinist) for, “external realities”, as the positivism of
Durkheim (1980) argues. Moreover, the explicative power of the social
sciences is illusory, given the difficulty in isolating the factors intervening in
social situations.
In the light of the foregoing, is it possible to question whether the social
will mean to explain or to comprehend. If the social object is seen not as an
external reality, but as a subjective construction, then studying the social will be
to understand it. Understanding may nevertheless signify, as Max Weber
stressed, explaining the motivation and meaning attributed to or associated with
Helena Neves Almeida
26-01-01

8. the action. In this regard, explaining is also perceiving the context to which that
action belongs.
Acceptance of the eclectic argument, and recognizing the possibility of
combining sundry knowledge in the course of an action, does not imply that
social workers are released from their responsibilities in the process of
accumulating, integrating and transforming knowledge coming from practice, as
though theory might restrict the action or limit the production of knowledge, or
even as though practice might constitute a reservoir of theory. On the contrary,
theory empowers practice, furnishing it with valuable orientations relative to
understanding the reality / the context in which it operates and to the very
process of intervention, without descending into practicism.
Theory should, therefore, be seen as a tool for guiding action and
action as a space for renewing knowledge. In this context, the field of
practice is established as a dynamic entity, helping towards the
construction of new knowledge. Action always has meaning and
signification, and the social worker cannot be consigned to a passive role
in the process of receiving and using knowledge. Knowledge is
replenished in everyday life and in the context of the relations between
social actors. Social workers must be aware of this fact and not ignore
the huge source of knowledge which practice comprises. Theory and
practice are inextricably linked.
Helena Neves Almeida
26-01-01

9. 3 – The value of theory
But let us not belittle the value of theory. It is an essential guide both on
the plane of constructing new knowledge and on that of action, since it supplies
practice (Payne, 1994, 50) with:
models – which make it possible to single out determined principles and
patterns of activity which standardize practices, from descriptions of general
practice procedures;
approaches or perspectives – in the framework of complex human
activities, which allow subjects to participate consciously in the processes in
which they are involved;
explanations – about the reasons why a given action works in a given way,
and in what circumstances this occurs;
prescriptions – for actions, so that those who are intervening know what to
do in specific circumstances;
justifications – for the use of models and explanations of practice
responsibilities – in describing appropriate practices.
It can be made a distinction between comprehensive theories, applied
theories, specific theories and perspective theories:
Comprehensive theories - offer a system of thinking that covers all the
practices of social workers who wish to develop ‘casework’, group work or
residential work practices. Comprehensive theories provide a global
framework, regardless of the core object and area of intervention. This refers to
Helena Neves Almeida
26-01-01

10. the knowledge that makes it possible to understand the complexity of the
intervention process, and which serves to buttress the bases for practices that
are differentiated and, at the same time, standardized, from the standpoint of
the intentionality of the action. Among these theories we may place
psychodynamic theories, behavioral theories, cognitivist theories and systems’
theories.
Perspective Theories which consist of ways of considering life,
organizing professional attitudes relative to personal and social change, and
which shape conceptions in the framework of professional practices. In this
group we find the humanist / existentialist and radical approaches.
Specific Theories which delimit specific procedures and benchmark
attitudes, whatever the starting context and theoretic framework may be.
Theories of communication and problem solving can be found in this group of
orientations.
Applied Theories which produce a group of knowledge oriented to
particular concrete situations in an individual or collective field, such as conflict
management, network working, pedagogy of consciousness-raising,
empowerment, advocacy. Social mediation also belongs in this group of
theories (Almeida, 2000).
So, there are several theories backing up methodological and procedural
options (Figure 1), which operate at different levels: the level of global
Helena Neves Almeida
26-01-01

11. comprehension; the level of conceptualization of practice, and the procedural
level. The multiplicity of theoretical benchmarks bear witness to the complexity
of the intervention process and the need for interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary
work.
FIG. 1 – THEORETICAL BENCHMARKS FOR SOCIAL WORK
COMPREHENSIVE THEORIES
PERSPECTIVE THEORIES
SPECIFIC THEORIES
PRACTICAL
THEORIES
Conflict Management
Network working
Empowerment
Advocacy
Social Mediation
THEORIES OF COMMUNICATION
HUMANIST / EXISTENTIALIST APPROACH
RADICAL APPROACH
PSYCHODYNAMIC THEORY. BEHAVIORAL THEORY
COGNITIVIST THEORY SYSTEMS’ THEORY
Helena Neves Almeida
26-01-01

12. Final considerations: The responsibility of university institutions that run
training courses in social work.
In the light of the above, the application of knowledge to social reality
implies a drive based on three aspects:
1 – the acknowledgment of the theoretical content which underpins
renewed practices and the meaning ascribed to them;
2 – the identification of the conceptual network that cements the innovative
attitudes on the procedural plane;
3 – the acceptance of the active role played by social workers on the plane
of knowledge construction.
These elements favour both the development of coherent, theoretically
based, strategic actions, that is, actions that are cognitively oriented by means-
ends relations, adapted to the social reality of intervention, and also the
production of new knowledge. The field of action is not a hoard of knowledge
that manifests itself as a routine. Action is the outcome of choices, even when
we are not aware of the fact. And, although their bases may not always be
particularly distinct, these choices lead to the perception that practices are
diverse. The inadequate consideration given to everyday professional life has
contributed a great deal to this.
In this context, the responsibility of university institutions is considerable.
It has become necessary to develop a “culture of research” that brings the
discourses of theory and practice closer together. And this will only be
achieved by doing research, and teaching how to do it. Relations with the field
of intervention enable knowledge to be replenished, converging strategies and
valuing knowledge.
Helena Neves Almeida
26-01-01

13. References:
ALMEIDA H., Conceptions et pratiques de la médiation sociale. Les modèles de
médiation dans le quotidien professionnel des assistants sociaux. Thèse de
doctorat présentée à la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Fribourg, en
Suisse, 2000.
BANKS S., Ethics and values in social work, London, Macmillan Press, 1995.
CURNOCK K. & HARDICKER P., Towards Practice Theory. Skills and Methods
in Social Assessments, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979.
DE BRUYNE P. & al., Dynamique de la recherche en sciences sociales, Les
pôles de la pratique méthodologique, Paris, PUF, 1974.
DURKHEIM E., As regras do método sociológico, Lisboa, Editorial Presença,
1980.
ERICKSON F., “Qualitative methods in research on teaching” in WITTROCK
M.C., Handbook of research on teaching, Nova Yorque, Macmillan, 1986,
pp.119-161.
GRAWITZ M., Méthodes des Sciences Sociales, Paris, Précis Dalloz, 7e edition,
1986.
GROULX L., “Recherche et formation en service social au Quebec: tendances
et interprétation” in Service Social dans le Monde, 3, 1984.
HOWE D., An introduction to social work theory: making sense in practice,
Community Care,England, Wildwood House Limited, 1987.
KAHN A., Teoria e prática do planejamento social, S.Paulo, ESSPUC, 1971.
LESSARD-HÉBERT G., & BOUTIN G., Investigação qualitativa: fundamentos e
práticas, Lisboa, Instituto Piaget, 1994.
PAYNE M., Modern Social Theory: a Critical Introduction, London, Macmillan
Press, 1991.
ROBERTS R., Lessons from the Past: Issues for Social Work Theory, London,
Routledge, 1990.
RONNBY A., “Praxiology in Social Work” in International Social Work, vol,35,
1992, pp.317-329.
SCHÖN D., The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, New
York, Basic Books, 1987.
Helena Neves Almeida
26-01-01

14. NEW APPROACHES TO SOCIAL
INTERVENTION
- THE APPLICATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF
KNOWLEDGE:
A CHALLENGE AND CURRENT DYNAMIC IN
SOCIAL WORK-
Helena Neves Almeida
Helena Neves Almeida
26-01-01

15. The question is to know the relationship
between theory and practice in the
intervention process
and
what the arguments are in this
context.
Helena Neves Almeida
26-01-01

16. 1 – The relationship between theory and
practice in the process of social work
There are three prominent arguments :
The pragmatic argument, the positivist argument and eclecticism.
- The pragmatic argument holds that there is a confused mass of theories,
mostly imported from different social, economic and political contexts, and of
no useful relevance. The obstacles to practical application have various
origins, among which the following stand out: the generalist nature of some
theories, which hampers their using in specific practical actions, and the
existence of a high degree of competition between theories, making it
difficult to choose a particular one.
- The positivist argument argues that many theories are insufficiently
rigorous and do not constitute true theories, since they describe and raise
hypotheses, but do not have an explicative power based on empirical
references. According to this perspective, the comprehension of human
activity should be based on the methods of the natural sciences, and
therefore predict behaviours on the basis of experimental methods and
statistical tests.
Helena Neves Almeida
26-01-01

17. - Eclecticism focuses its attention on the possibility of using a combination of
several theories at the same time. By this argument, clients ought to be able
to benefit from all the knowledge available, since the theories belong to
various disciplinary domains, or may work on different levels. This fact
underpins the argument that it should be possible to make use of different
theories, in combined way.
Helena Neves Almeida
26-01-01

18. 2 – What consideration should we give to
such arguments?
Theory should, therefore, be seen as a tool for guiding
action and action as a space for renewing knowledge. In this
context, the field of practice is established as a dynamic entity,
helping towards the construction of new knowledge.
Action always has meaning and signification, and the
social worker cannot be consigned to a passive role in the
process of receiving and using knowledge.
Knowledge is replenished in everyday life and in the
context of the relations between social actors. Social workers
must be aware of this fact and not ignore the huge source of
knowledge which practice comprises.
Theory and practice are inextricably linked.
Helena Neves Almeida
26-01-01

19. 3 – The value of theory
But let us not belittle the value of theory. It is an essential guide both
on the plane of constructing new knowledge and on that of action, since it
supplies practice with:
models – which make it possible to single out determined principles and
patterns of activity which standardize practices, from descriptions of general
practice procedures;
approaches or perspectives – in the framework of complex human
activities, which allow subjects to participate consciously in the processes in
which they are involved;
explanations – about the reasons why a given action works in a given
way, and in what circumstances this occurs;
prescriptions – for actions, so that those who are intervening know what
to do in specific circumstances;
justifications – for the use of models and explanations of practice
Helena Neves Almeida
26-01-01

20. It can be made a distinction between
comprehensive theories, applied theories,
specific theories and perspective theories.
FIG. 1 – THEORETICAL BENCHMARKS FOR SOCIAL WORK
COMPREHENSIVE THEORIES
PERSPECTIVE THEORIES
SPECIFIC THEORIES
PRACTICAL
THEORIES
Conflict Management
Network working
Empowerment
Advocacy
Social Mediation
THEORIES OF COMMUNICATION
HUMANIST / EXISTENTIALIST APPROACH
RADICAL APPROACH
PSYCHODYNAMIC THEORY. BEHAVIORAL THEORY
COGNITIVIST THEORY SYSTEMS’ THEORY
Helena Neves Almeida
26-01-01

21. Final considerations
The responsibility of university institutions
that run training courses in social work.
In the light of the above, the application of knowledge to social reality
implies a drive based on three aspects:
1 – the acknowledgment of the theoretical content which
underpins renewed practices and the meaning ascribed to
them;
2 – the identification of the conceptual network that
cements the innovative attitudes on the procedural plane;
3 – the acceptance of the active role played by social
workers on the plane of knowledge construction.
Helena Neves Almeida
26-01-01

22. These elements favour both the development of coherent,
theoretically based, strategic actions, that is, actions that are
cognitively oriented by means-ends relations, adapted to the
social reality of intervention, and also the production of new
knowledge. The field of action is not a hoard of knowledge that
manifests itself as a routine. Action is the outcome of choices,
even when we are not aware of the fact. And, although their
bases may not always be particularly distinct, these choices
lead to the perception that practices are diverse. The
inadequate consideration given to everyday professional life
has contributed a great deal to this.
In this context, the responsibility of university institutions
is considerable. It has become necessary to develop a
“culture of research” that brings the discourses of theory
and practice closer together. And this will only be achieved by
doing research, and teaching how to do it. Relations with the
field of intervention enable knowledge to be replenished,
converging strategies and valuing knowledge.
Helena Neves Almeida
26-01-01