This paper was first published in The Journal of Training and Development 1(4), 1991. Reproduced with the kind permission of Pepar Publications.

Putting Theory into Practice: A Study of Practice Records

Neil Thompson

This paper is an account of a small-scale study undertaken as an attempt to explore the perceptions of practitioners concerning the work they are undertaking. The focus in this particular study is on the use of theory in practice, the application of theoretical concepts and frameworks to day-to-day social work practice. By studying case-recordings of CQSW students on placement, I was able to obtain empirical material to help cast light on the issues of relating theory to practice.

What emerged was in some ways disappointing insofar as a wide range of theory-practice issues were virtually untouched. Overall, however, the findings give considerable food for thought in terms of furthering our understanding of the use of theory in practice.

102 examples of recordings of social work practice were examined, including placement summaries, case studies and a small number of process recordings. More than nine CQSW courses were represented in the sample and no two pieces of work derived from the same student.

A textual analysis was undertaken to identify the use of theoretical concepts and frameworks. The term ‘theory’ was interpreted quite widely to any apparent use of ideas other than ‘commonsense’ or everyday assumptions.

The Findings

There was only one reference to a philosophical school of any kind and this was to ‘existentialism’ (the work of Tillich to be exact). The most frequent theoretical reference was to psychodynamics, totalling 23 in all. Many of these references seemed quite ad hoc, as if added as an afterthought. The temptation to conclude that many students felt it necessary to refer to Freud or his concepts, whether applicable or not, is indeed a strong one. Despite psychodynamics being regarded as somewhat unfashionable, its influence on students’ perceptions of their practice would appear to remain very strong.

Some other mainstream approaches were far less in evidence; for example, behaviourism featured five times and systems theory only three. Other ‘old favourites’, such as the importance of the client-worker relationship, were also rarely mentioned (four times, in this case).

The notion of ‘support’ appeared eighteen times but in fourteen of these, it was used vaguely without specifying what form such support should take. Similarly, there were five references to ‘adjustment’ but without further clarification of what this entailed.

Family dynamics scored fairly highly with fourteen references, although ‘family therapy’ as a technique was not mentioned at all. Role theory merited nine references, as did ‘class’ and the importance of confidence or self-esteem. Explanation of problems in terms of relationship difficulties also featured nine times.

Contract work was mentioned eight times but, despite this relatively low number (less than 8%), a great deal of enthusiasm was expressed for this type of work.

There were eight references to environmental causality, all presented with no further qualification, clarification or explanation. Environmental determinism was taken as read without need for further comment.

By contrast, there were seven references to the role of personal values and six to the significance of frames of reference. This ‘interpretivist’ perspective counterbalanced the determinist tendencies encountered, but there were some instances of contradictory perspectives within the same item, i.e. students both assuming and denying free will in the same report.

In addition to the main themes outlined here, there was a range of other points which were mentioned between one and five times. These were:-

	learned helplessness (2)	Erikson’s eight stages (1)
	cry for help (3)	double-bind (3)
	uniqueness of the person (5)	self-determination (4)
	dehumanisation (1)	inadequate personality (2)
	the sick role (5)	alienation (1)
	sense of self (3)	self-awareness (2)
	responsibility as positive (3)	nature (in the sense of a fixed personality or ‘essence’) (4)
	conformity to social values (5)	unmet needs (2)
	relevance of gender (3)	distorted communication (3)
	decision anxiety (1)	ventilation (5)
	social network (3)	Rogerian therapy (2)
	crisis intervention (4)	organisational factors (2)
	culture (4)	group process (1)
	task-centred work (1)	keep the family together (2)
	eclecticism (2)	Marxism (1)

In a total sample of 102 items, the number of references to theoretical concepts and frameworks amounted to 218, an average of just over two references per item. However, twenty-one of the items were purely descriptive and made no reference to theoretical concerns whatsoever. The 218 references therefore featured in only 81 of the items. If we thus exclude the twenty-one atheoretical items, the average becomes almost three references per item (2.7 compared with the previous average of 2.1).

Discussion

One point which clearly emerges from these findings is the relative underuse of theoretical concepts. There was no evidence at all of the consistent or systematic application of a particular framework, approach or theory. Where theorising did appear to be taking place, it was on a piecemeal basis with no overall strategy or tactic discernible.

It is of course possible that a theoretical strategy was being used but that the recordings, for whatever reason, fail to reveal or reflect this. Nonetheless, on the basis of the evidence available, the only form of strategy which could have been operating is eclecticism or a commonsensical approach. As I have argued elsewhere (Thompson, 1990), these two amount to more or less the same thing – a conceptually inadequate understanding which tends to ignore the moral-political dimension of social work as it takes social values for granted. This is particularly worrying in terms of the development of anti-discriminatory practice. A practice based on ‘common sense’ will reflect the discriminatory assumptions commonly made and will thus reinforce the oppressions of racism, ageism, sexism, etc.

It is interesting to speculate as to whether the somewhat perfunctory allusions to psychodynamics were perhaps attempts to add a misguided touch of theoretical respectability to what were basically commonsense accounts enhanced by a smattering of social science. Of the twenty-three references, four were based on an apparent misunderstanding of Freud’s work; this tended to reinforce my suspicion that the interest in Freud was ex post facto – after the event, as it were, – rather than the rationale on which intervention was based.

This rather disappointing picture is made worse by the fact that over one-fifth of the accounts of practice made no reference to theory whatsoever, while the vast majority made limited or cursory reference to such issues. The picture this study paints is of practice divorced from theory. Given that one of the major aims of social work education is surely to teach the skills of making use of theory in practice, i.e. of ideas in action, this picture is a very worrying one.

Another area which concerned me was the juxtaposition of contradictory elements. Concepts which imply free will appear in the same recording as deterministic notions (e.g. the idea that being brought up in a certain area ‘causes’ crime). The tension between these conflicting ideas was not recognised and no attempts were made to resolve it. This study strongly suggests that the inter-relationship of concepts is rarely considered. There was no evidence of an overarching or unifying framework to guide or inform practice. The students who produced these recordings readily referred to a range of theoretical concepts and practice issues but no links are made, no patterns formed. Again, eclecticism or common sense proved to be an acceptable basis.

Conclusion

The confusion and lack of understanding suggested by these recordings can be seen as symptomatic of the lack of a coherent framework or consistent system of ideas which can be used to make sense of our social work practice. Curnock and Hardiker (1979) refer to the use of ‘practice wisdom’, an uncodified and less explicit form of theory, but the students in this study seemed to be struggling to get to grips with any form of theoretical basis to their work.

There was some evidence of a reliance on eclecticism, the use of concepts from different (and often contradictory) theories. Social work is a complex and multi-faceted enterprise and certainly demands more than a few unrelated concepts thrown together in an unco-ordinated whole.

The first and necessary step towards coping with the problems and pressures which befall us is to make sense of the situation – to find a thread of meaning which helps us take control of the part we play in the overall situation. A hotchpotch of theoretical ideas used in a piecemeal fashion cannot assist in making sense of the complexities of the social work world and indeed is likely to add to the difficulties.

The evidence from this study leads me to conclude that the attempts social work students make to apply theory to practice have very limited success. The links between theory and practice are barely sketched out, let alone drawn in any detail. The impression given is of practice based on intuitive or commonsense notions with only minimal reference to theory, even though one of the primary tasks of the practice placements which these recordings describe is to integrate theory and practice, to make social work practice an informed practice.

My interpretation of this evidence is that theoretical issues are not addressed partly because students feel anxious and ill-equipped due to the pragmatic tradition of social work which easily spills over into anti-intellectualism and a mistrust of all things theoretical. In short, I feel that these recordings of practice illustrate a polarisation of theory and practice, the driving of an unnecessary and unhelpful wedge between theory and practice, between thinking and doing.

This raises a number of questions which merit further attention. Firstly, would social workers have a sounder base for judgment if they were to adopt a systematic framework to guide their practice? Secondly, would social workers feel happier and less insecure in their work if it were informed by clear principles? Thirdly, could the advantages of an overarching framework – which not only relates theory to practice but also inter-relates the various dimensions – help to reduce the feelings of confusion and demoralisation which characterise ‘burn-out’?

The recordings did not engage the theory-practice issues despite the social work education emphasis on integrating theory in practice. However, the question arises as to whether students are only at the beginning of a process of relating the two and it is only after greater experience of dealing with ideas in action that the integration takes place. This in itself is a question which would justify further examination and could form the basis of further research. How this process develops and how it is affected by theory-practice polarisation would form interesting lines of enquiry.

The scope for further investigation of theory in practice is therefore quite considerable and we will hopefully continue to build on our knowledge of this area, particularly as the development of anti-discriminatory policy and practice must necessarily be based on an ability to apply (anti-discriminatory) theory to practice. It is therefore important that the plea for a greater emphasis on the use of theory in practice is not dismissed as an academic irrelevancy.

References

Curnock, K. and Hardiker, P. (1979) Towards Practice Theory London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

Thompson, N. (1990) Existentialism and Social Work PhD Thesis, University of Keele

Back to Articles