Six of the nine papers in this issue focus on diverse, international perspectives on practice: the impact of new social work practices on families living in an English local authority (Morris et al); an Australian practitioner’s experiences of social work practice with indigenous communities (Nietz); a Finnish account of letter writing practices with child care social workers (Poso); a Canadian study exploring adolescents’ experiences of therapeutic relationships (Ungar et al), and two UK studies, one exploring the developmental space offered by a university counselling service, using a single case example (Gregor), and one looking at the communication patterns of professionals working with adults with dementia (Riachi).
Morris and colleagues report on the impact on families of the introduction of a new way of working introduced by Children’s Services in an English local authority. As part of a larger, nationwide government-funded innovation evaluation programme, two significant findings emerge from the research: first, the importance of change programmes creating an opportunity for relationship-based social work to develop and be consolidated, with high-quality interpersonal communication skills being of more significance than specific theoretical frameworks, and second, the adverse impact of structural factors on the potential for changes in practice to take hold and the shortage of practical responses and resources available to social workers. These findings make an important contribution to wider debates in the English childcare social work context where developments in relationship-based practice are gaining purchase, but only slowly, due to the challenging and constraining context of increasing structural inequality.
In the second paper in this issue Nietz explores, through an autoethnographic lens, the challenges of working with Aborginal communities in Australia. To assist social workers to develop their cultural competence, Nietz seeks to problematize psychosocial and psychodynamic approaches to practice in order to ensure that alongside the recognition of power dynamics that already exists, the emotional dimensions of practice are foregrounded. For Nietz, the creation of critical, relation-based practice is essential if engagement with indigenous communities is to be meaningful, respectful and effective.
A fascinating paper by Tarja Poso from Finland examines the introduction of a letter writing practice in the context of a research project. Poso invited practitioners taking part in a larger study of experiences of children looked after by the State to use their ‘professional imagination’ in writing a letter to the researcher about a child they are working with and their birth parents. The letter is written as if it is 5 years in the future and serves to surface what hypotheses the practitioners might carry about a child’s future. As an innovative way of accessing implicit, tacit professional knowledge the paper raises interesting questions about how letter writing practices can be developed as a method both for research and for practice in the context of social work.
The fourth practice focused paper, by Ungar and colleagues, comes from a smaller project nested in a bigger Canadian research study. The project was interested in better understanding how adolescents with mental health issues experienced therapeutic relationships and out of its findings developed a matrix model correlating levels of risk and resilience with types of relationship: formal and informal; blurred and rigid boundaries; degrees of professional self-disclosure, authenticity and genuineness. Overall the message of the research charges practitioners to resist a ‘one size fits all’ approach to therapeutic work and to recognise the importance of accurately assessing an individual’s needs before allocating a service.
The fifth practice paper is well-grounded in psychodynamic theory and explores the experience of a university counsellor working with a student over the 3 years of her undergraduate degree, against a backdrop of increasing numbers of students seeking mental health support. Gregor discusses both the student’s way of engaging with her during her first and final years, and her own reflections on the countertransference and her experiences in supervision. She argues that the long working relationship, albeit limited to fornightly sessions during term time, allows for maturational development, in contrast to a typically brief offer of six sessions made by university counselling services.
The final practice focused paper, by Riachi, moves into the realm of social work with adults in the UK, and more specifically adults with dementia. A small-scale qualitative study assessed the impact of using the Specialised Early Care for Alzheimer’s (SPECAL) model and uncovered the need for domiciliary and social care workers to ensure they maintain ‘the personhood’ of the individual by being protective, reassuring, reflective and empathic. Whilst the model has clear potential, some of its practice – not asking questions and not correcting factual inaccuracies – remains a challenge for staff as such responses are embedded in our cultural conduct. The research concludes that reconfiguring these practices to meet the needs of people with dementia requires the professional carers to have time to establish meaningful relationships with those with Alzheimer’s and supportive seniors and peers.
Moving away from papers directly addressing practice, the following two papers address different types of support for social workers, one from Israel and the other from England. Ben Abu and colleagues, echoing some of Gregor’s discussion of student counselling, have provided a thought-provoking insight into the creation of a psychodynamically informed reflective space for social work students, informed by Winnicottian ideas of ‘potential space.’ In the context of a Jewish social work programme, the authors devised a ‘quasi-academic’ space – the Beit Midrash or Jewish Study Hall. This unique space enables academics and students to study together the significance of Jewish text for social work practice. Evaluation of the study space highlighted its importance as a physically safe space that allows for metaphysical exploration in complementary ways, echoing facets of Winnicott’s ‘potential space’ – inside–outside, real–imaginary, spiritual–material.
Stevenson’s paper explores his experiences of facilitating a ‘group dynamic experiential seminar group’ to explore attitudes to issues of race and culture in the context of a qualifying social work programme. Drawing on a range of psychodynamic ideas, the paper illustrates how experiential learning can generate deep and potentially transformative learning that extends beyond issues of race and culture, highlighting how personal perspectives shape responses to oppressive behaviours more broadly.
The final paper by Emond and colleagues offers the reader an insight into the complex relationship between writing for practice and practice itself. Out of the reflections on their experience of co-authoring a practitioner-focused book, the paper’s authors have illuminated the parallel processes that shape writing and practice, notably, the role of anxiety, the experience of constrained professional confidence and autonomy and the impact of wider social–political austerity. In so doing, they remind us all as readers, practitioners, researchers and writers – whichever role we might be in at any point in time – of the importance of retaining a reflective and relational mindset.
As a whole, the papers make for a rich and inspiring journal issue that offers hope for those receiving services. This hope emanates from the commitment of academics and practitioners to expand and enhance how professional practices engage with the lives of individual encountering difficulties, in ways that are relational and respectful, reflective and responsible.