The document focuses on building models of social processes in social work, emphasizing two approaches: top-down and ground-up models. It discusses the importance of theories and models in understanding relationships and guiding research, highlighting key elements such as emotional expressiveness and factors affecting outcomes in complex trauma. The paper also addresses the role of evidence-based practice and proposes interventions with perpetrators of violence, emphasizing the necessity of understanding participant perspectives and ethical considerations in social work research.

1. Building Models of Social Processes
From the Ground Up:
Two Case Studies
Jane F. Gilgun, PhD, LICSW
Professor, School of Social Work
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, USA

2. Topics
• Theories
•Models
• Top Down Models
• Ground Up Models
• Social Work Specific Models

3. Theories
• A statement of relationships between
two or more concepts

4. Theories
• A statement of relationships between
two or more concepts
• Transportable from situation to
situation

5. Theories
• A statement of relationships between
two or more concepts
• Transportable from situation to
situation
• In practice, we test them for fit in new
situations

6. Uses of Theories
• Helps us see what we might not have seen
otherwise
• Guidance in research
• Sensitizing concepts
• May prevent us from seeing other aspects of
phenomena
• Importance of looking for “negative” cases

7. Uses of Theories
• Helps us see what we might not have seen
otherwise
• Guidance in research
• Sensitizing concepts
• Develop them
• Refine and/or Refute them
• To come up with those that fit phenomena as we
interpret them

8. Models
• Statement of relationships of how things work
• Composed or concepts

9. Models
• Statement of relationships of how things work
• Composed of concepts
• Typically account for processes
• Helps us see what we might not otherwise see

10. Models
• Statement of relationships of how things work
• Composed or concepts
• Typically account for processes
• Helps us see what we might not otherwise see
• Test them for fit
• Modify them when “evidence” (our
constructions and interpretations) supports the
change

11. Intervention Research
• Ideal way to build models of practice
• Deductive and inductive
• Continual evaluation—formative
• Purpose to create a more workable model
• Adaptable to persons and situations
• Requires the use of
• The four cornerstones of evidence-based practice
• Common factors model

12. Examples of Theories
• Emotional expressiveness is the single most
important factor that differentiates persons with
risks for violence and who do not become violent
from persons with risk for violence and who
become violent.
• Beliefs account for why persons become violent
independent of their risk profiles.

13. Examples of Models
• Factors associated with good outcomes
when children have experienced complex
trauma
• Intervention with perpetrators of
interpersonal violence

14. Factors
• Definition of Good Outcomes
• Definition of Complex Trauma
• Factors
• Therapeutic alliance
• Parents’ actions
• Motivations
• Resources
• External factors

15. Interventions
with Perpetrators
• Beliefs
• About violence
• About effects of violence on self & others

16. Interventions
with Perpetrators
• Beliefs
• About violence
• About effects of violence on self & others
• Meanings of Violence
• Experience of Violence

17. Interventions with
Perpetrators
• Autonomic Nervous System (ANS)
• How to access ANS?
• How to ensure trust, safety, build therapeutic
relationships?
• Group work?
• Individual work?
• Accountability
• Reconciliation
• Self
• Others

18. Two Types of Model Building
•Top Down
•Bottom Up

19. Top Down
• “Deductive”
• Examples of Types
• Logic Models
• Theories of Change

20. Top Down
• “Deductive”
• Examples of Types
• Logic Models
• Theories of Change
• Many Possible Variations Re
• Philosophies of science
• Participants

21. Top Down
• “Deductive”
• Examples of Types
• Logic Models
• Theories of Change
• Many Possible Variations Re
• Philosophies of science
• Participants
• Typically
• Outsider perspectives
• Executives & Supervisors

22. Ground Up
• Has “deductive” elements”
• Conceptual frameworks
• Sensitizing concepts

23. Ground Up
• Has “deductive” elements”
• Conceptual frameworks
• Sensitizing concepts
• Seek to add to/modify/refute these elements
• Philosophy of science: phenomenological &
critical realism/contructivism/anti-oppressive

24. Ground Up
• Has “deductive” elements”
• Conceptual frameworks
• Sensitizing concepts
• Seek to add to/modify/refute these elements
• Philosophy of science: phenomenological &
Critical Realist/Constructivist/anti-oppressive
• Sources of data
• Insiders
• Persons who represent client groups
• Professionals familiar with client groups

25. Four Cornerstones of EBP
• Research & Theory
• Clinical Expertise
• Client/Service User Experiences,
Preferences, Wants, Values
• Practitioner Use of Self: Reflective
Practice, Values, Personal Experience

26. The Common Factors Model
• Extratherapeutic Factors (40%) [events external to
service provision]
• Therapeutic Relationships (30%)
• Optimism, Motivation, Capacities (15%)
• Skills, techniques (15%)

27. Motivation
& Expectancies
15%
Therapeutic
Extratherapeutic
Effects 40%
Technique
15%

28. Social Work Specific Models
• Questions are participant-defined
• Perspectives of participants
• Researchers seek to understand
multiple perspectives within
person-environment interactions
• Emancipatory

29. Social Work Specific Models
• Based upon researcher immersion into
social settings
• Explicit about ethics and values such as
anti-oppressive practice and social justice
• Clarity about the links between general
statements about findings and the data on
which these are based

30. Discussion
• What do you think?
• Social Work Specific?
• The Undefined Alternative
• Post-Positivistic
• A definition of science that excludes the scientific
method?
• Non-reflective?
• Non-experiential
• Lack of transparency about values?

31. References
Benner, P. (Ed.) (1994). Interpretive phenomenology. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Blow, Adrian J., Douglas Sprenkle, & Sean D. Davis (2007). Is who
delivers the treatment more important than the treatment itself? The
role of the therapist in common factors. Journal of Marital & Family
Therapy, 333(3), 298-317.
Blumer, H. (1986). What is wrong with social theory? In Herbert
Blumer (1986), Symbolic interactionism. (pp. 140-152) Berkeley:
University of California Press.
John S. Brekke (2012). Shaping a science of social work. Research on
Social Work Practice, 22(5) 455-464
Bryant, A., and Charmaz, K. (2007) (Eds). Sage handbook of grounded
theory (pp. 1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bulmer, M. (1984). The Chicago School of Sociology. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide
through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

32. Corbin, J. and Straus, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative
research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cressey, D. (1953). Other people's money. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
D’Cruz, H.,Gillingham, P. and Melendez, S. (2007).
Reflexivity, its meanings and relevance for social work: A
critical review of the literature. British Journal of Social
Work, 37(1), 73-90.
Denzin, N.K. (1997). Coffee with Anselm. Qualitative Family
Research, 11(1&2), 1-4.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27352636/Coffee-with-
Anselm Downloaded 4 February 2014.
Denzin, Norman K. (2010). Grounded and indigenous
theories and the politics of pragmatism. Sociological
Inquiry, 80(2), 286-312.

33. Deegan, M.J. (1990). Jane Addams and the men of the Chicago School
of Sociology, 1892-1918. New Brunswick: Transaction.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
Dominelli, L. (1996). Deprofessionalizing social work: Anti-oppressive
practice, competencies and postmodernism. British Journal of Social
Work, 26, 153-175.
Forte, J.A. (2004). Symbolic interactionism and social work: A forgotten
legacy. Part 2. Families in Society, 85(4), 421-530.
Frazier, E. F. (1932). The Negro family in Chicago. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Gilgun, J. F. (1995). We shared something special: The moral discourse
of incest perpetrators. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 265-
281.
Gilgun, J. F. (2005a). Qualitative research and family psychology.
Journal of Family Psychology,19(1), 40-50.
Gilgun, J. F. (2005b). The four cornerstones of evidence-based practice
in social work. Research on Social Work Practice, 15(1), 52-61.
Gilgun, J. F. (2008). Lived experience, reflexivity, and research on
perpetrators of interpersonal violence. Qualitative Social Work, 7(2),
181-197.

34. Gilgun, J. F. (2012a). Enduring themes in qualitative family research.
Journal of Family Theory and Review, 4, 80-95.
Gilgun, J. F. (2012b) Hand into glove: Grounded theory, deductive
qualitative analysis and social work research and practice. In Anne E.
Fortune, William Reid, & Robert Miller (Eds.). Qualitative Methods in Social
Work (2nd ed.) (pp. 107-134New York: Columbia University Press.
Gilgun, Jane F. (2014). Writing up qualitative research. In Patricia Leavy
(Ed.). The Oxford handbook of qualitative research methods (pp. 658-676).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Gilgun, Jane F. (2014). The legacy of the Chicago School: Deductive
qualitative analysis and Social work research. Amazon.
Gilgun, Jane F. & Roberta G. Sands (2012). The contributions of qualitative
approaches to developmental intervention research. Qualitative Social
Work. 11(4) ,349-361.
Gilgun, J. F., Klein, C., & Pranis, K. (2000). The significance of
resources in models of risk. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
14, 627–646.
Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New
York: Aldine
Houston, S. (2001). Beyond social constructionism: Critical realism and
social work. British Journal of Social Work, 31, 841-861.

35. Lambert, M. (1992). Implications of outcome research for psychotherapy
integration. In J. Norcross & J. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of
psychotherapy integration (pp. 94-129) NY: Basic.
Lindesmith, A. R. (l947). Opiate addiction. Bloomington, IN: Principia.
Longhofer, J., and Floersch, J. (2012). The coming crisis in social work:
Some thoughts on social work and science. Research on Social Work
Practice, 22(5), 499-519.
Maxell, Joseph A. (2004). Using qualitative methods for causal
explanation. Field Methods (16), 243-264,
Olesen, V., Droes, N., Hatton, D., Chico, N. and Schatzman, L. (1994).
In A. Bryman and R. G. Burgess (Eds.) Analyzing qualitative data (pp.
111-128). London: Routledge.
Oliver, C. (2012). Critical realist grounded theory: A new approach for
social work research. British Journal of Social Work, 42, 371-387.
Patton, Michael Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation. New York:
Guilford.
Popper, K. R. (1969). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of
scientific knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Rothman, Jack & & Edwin J. Thomas (Eds.). Intervention research: Design and
development for Human services. New York: Haworth.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York:
Cambridge University Press.

36. Strauss, Anselm (1992). A personal history of grounded
theory. Qualitative Family Research, 5 (2), 1-2.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44659994/Anselm-Strauss-
Writes-A-Personal-History-of-Grounded-Theory-Other-
Articles. Downloaded 4 February 2014.
Strier, R. (2007). Anti-oppressive research in social work: A
preliminary definition. British Journal of Social Work, 37(5),
857-871.
Thomas, W. I., and Znaniecki, F. (1918-1920/1927). The
Polish peasant in Europe and America, Vol. 1-2. New York:
Knopf. First published in 1918-1920.
Thyer, Bruce (2001). What is the role of theory in research
on social work practice? Journal of Social Work Education,
37(1), 9-25.
Webb, S., and Webb, B. (1932). Methods of social study.
Longman, Greens.
Znaniecki, F. (l934). The method of sociology. New York:
Farrar and Rinehart.