142 Social Work Theories in Context

testifying.’ Tracy’s situation points to a number of public policy issues. Aside

from the issue of support for young people to access to educational
opportunities, Tracy’s situation also raises issues about the plight of young
people abused in alternative care systems and the importance of early
intervention and support systems for young parents.

Phase Three: The Ending Phase

As in the task-centred approach, a well-planned termination of intervention

is integral to the overall structure of the systems approach (Germain and
All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

Gitterman, 1996, p. 56). Some practical ways we could prepare Tracy for the
termination phase of our work together include discussing duration of
intervention at the outset and regularly referring to this throughout the
intervention process. Unlike task-centred practice, Germain and Gitterman
(1996, p. 59) stress that the social worker should encourage the service user
to discuss their responses, such as anger, sadness or relief, about the
conclusion of the intervention. Consistent with the emphasis in the eco-
systems approach’s stress on comprehensive service delivery, in this final
phase we should engage Tracy in an evaluation of our work together and
ensure that adequate plans are in place for her to access support once our
intervention is complete.

The Third Wave: Complex Systems Theories

In recent years, a third wave of systems theories has entered the social work
field. These systems approaches, known as complex systems and chaos
theories, emerged originally in the disciplines of maths, physics and
engineering (Bolland and Atherton, 1999; see also Capra, 1996). Over the
past two decades, these theories have had a growing impact on a range of
fields including information technology, business, management, social
sciences and the humanities. The Australian social work theorist, Colin Peile
was among the earliest proponents of complex systems ideas in social work
as exemplified in his work on the creative paradigm (see Peile, 1988, 1994).
By the late 1990s, a number of social work theorists were applying complex
systems ideas to social work practices (see Bolland and Atherton, 1999;
Hudson, 2000; Warren et al., 1998). Some theorists argue that complexity
Copyright 2005. Palgrave Macmillan.

theories provide a way of articulating the intuitive knowledge possessed by

most social work practitioners about the non-linearity and unpredictability
of change processes (see Bolland and Atherton, 1999; see also Warren et al.,
1998). These theorists argue that complex systems ideas enrich, rather than

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 2/2/2023 10:21 AM via TORONTO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY
AN: 191427 ; Healy, Karen.; Social Work Theories in Context : Creating Frameworks for Practice
Account: ryerson.main.ehost
 Three Waves of Systems Theories 143

replace, existing ideas about systems theories in social work (see Hudson,
2000, p. 227; Mattaini and Meyer, 2002, p. 9).
A complex system is one in which the behaviour of the whole system is
greater than the sum of its parts. Darley (1994, p. 1) states that ‘The defining
characteristic of a complex system is that some of its global behaviours,
which are the result of interactions between a large number of relatively
simple parts, cannot be predicted simply from the rules of those underlying
interactions.’ Complex systems researchers use inductive approaches to
consider how local phenomena, including apparently simple interactions,
contribute to evolution to larger complex systems.
Complex systems are characterized by non-linearity. Linearity implies a
constant relationship between two variables; for example, if the rate of
unemployment in an area increases, there is a proportionate increase in
the rate of crime. By contrast, in non-linear relationships, a change in one
variable, or set of variables, will be associated with disproportionate changes
in another variable, or set of variables. For example, as the rate of unemploy-
ment in an area rises, there is a sudden and disproportionate increase in the
rate of crime. The popular saying ‘the straw that broke the camel’s back’
captures the idea of the disproportionate relationship between an event and
an outcome (Hudson, 2000, p. 220).
Whereas general systems theorists suggest that, typically, social systems
are stable, complexity theorists argue that change is a usual feature of com-
plex social systems (Warren et al., 1998, pp. 364–5). Feedback mechanisms
contribute to the growing complexity of these systems over time (Capra,
1996, p. 123). In particular, the complexity of relationships within systems is
amplified by ‘repeatedly self-reinforcing feedback’ (ibid.); this is similar to
the concept of positive feedback in general systems theory. Within non-
linear systems certain events, or experiences, can have a snowballing effect:
there is a repetition (or iteration) of the effect of the event or experience so
that it has a disproportionate effect on the life of the individual, group,
family or community. For example, some settings of institutional care can
exacerbate, rather than alleviate, a person’s distress and illness by repeatedly
reinforcing the ‘sick role’ to the point where the person becomes the role
(see Goffman, 1991). Again, common expressions such as ‘downhill slide’,
or conversely the idea of ‘going from strength to strength’, capture some-
thing of the concept of ‘self-reinforcing feedback’.
Another feature of complex systems is extreme sensitivity to initial con-
ditions, that is, small changes at initial phases in the system’s development
can lead to substantial and complex changes in the behaviour of the system
(Capra, 1996, p. 132). Complexity theorists refer to this extreme sensitivity
as the ‘butterfly effect’; this metaphor is used because of the ‘half-joking
assertion that a butterfly stirring in Bejing today can cause a storm in New
York next month’ (ibid.). The concept of a ‘butterfly effect’ is relevant to a

EBSCOhost - printed on 2/2/2023 10:21 AM via TORONTO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
 144 Social Work Theories in Context

globalized world, where changes in one part of the world have immediate
and substantial impact on other parts. Similarly, in social work practice we
sometimes see that a short-term, and well-timed, intervention can have a
disproportionately positive impact on the capacity of service users to achieve
their goals. Indeed, the recognition of the potential for high impact in short-
term intervention underpins practice models such as problem-solving and
solutions-focused therapy.
Complex systems are characterized by complex, rather than random,
behaviour. Warren et al. (1998, p. 363) describe this as ‘deterministic chaos’.
Importantly, complexity or chaos theories do not imply that the ‘real world’
comprises of random unpredictable events, but rather that the behaviour
of complex systems shows ‘a deeper level of patterned order’ (Capra, 1996,
p. 122) than is suggested by the ‘linear cause and effect models familiar to
social scientists’ (Warren et al., 1998, p. 358). For example, recent discus-
sions on social capital suggest that the choices parents make (and are
constrained to make) about where they live can have a long-term and
substantial impact on the life chances of their children. Complex systems
theory recognizes that any ‘outcome’, such as children’s well-being, is deter-
mined by the interaction of multiple factors across interpersonal, commu-
nity and structural contexts (Mainzer, 1996, pp. 279–80). Overall, complex-
ity theorists do not see people as victims of their social context; nor do they
see them as entirely free agents.
Finally, the notion of ‘phase change’ used by complex systems theorists is
particularly relevant to social workers in community development contexts.
The term ‘phase change’ refers to the moment at which the system switches
from one pattern of complexity to another (see Mainzer, 1996, p. 10). For
example, human systems can shift rapidly from one form of organization to
another (Warren et al., 1998, p. 364), so that critical periods of phase change
are often observed in communities undergoing processes of urban
deteroriation or gentrification. During these periods, there are times when
the community becomes a qualitatively different place to be, whether for
better or worse. Understanding of the processes of phase change could help
us to advocate for policies that can promote or sustain positive changes in
communities. For instance, if we can show that a certain level of social mix,
such as numbers of home owners compared to renters, affects other out-
comes such as child protection risk, we may use this information to argue
for strategies to improve home ownership options in some communities
(see Manzer, 1996, p. 277).
Social work researchers have a developing interest in the application of
complex systems ideas to the discipline. Social work researchers Warren
et al. (1998, p. 366) assert that ‘nonlinear dynamics offers the possibility of a
far deeper and more nuanced understanding of the ways in which human
systems arise and change than is now available’. In addition, Bolland and

EBSCOhost - printed on 2/2/2023 10:21 AM via TORONTO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
 Three Waves of Systems Theories 145

Atherton (1999) contend that these theories affirm the understandings

already held by most practising social workers of the non-linearity of human
systems. For example, the recognition of the complex interactions between
individual systems and social structures is consistent with social workers’
long-standing focus on ‘person in environment’ approaches.
Yet despite the intuitive appeal of complex systems theories, we can also
identify a number of limitations to the application of these theories to social
work. The importance of specialist mathematical knowledge for describing
and analysing complex systems is a major barrier to social workers’ use of
complex systems ideas. As Bolland and Atherton (1999, p. 369) point out,
‘Strictly speaking, then, chaos theory is a mathematical way of under-
standing complex nonlinear behaviour in systems.’ The reliance of com-
plexity theory research on specialist mathematical knowledge, such as
fractal geometry, limits the application of complex systems theories in social
work, and indeed in many human science fields at the ‘conceptual or
hypothetical-deductive level’ (Hudson, 2000, p. 227). We must question
how realistic it is to expect social workers to develop expertise in complex
mathematics given the breadth of terrain already covered by our discipline.
Moreover, we must be wary of the potential of complex systems theory
research, given its foundations in disciplines that are markedly dissimilar to
social work, to further deepen the divisions between social work research
and social work practices.
A related concern is whether research techniques used by complexity
researchers to simulate complex weather systems or even economic sys-
tems should be applied to the study of social processes. Puddifoot (2000,
p. 84) points out that ‘there remains a considerable gap between idealized
theoretical models and anything resembling real social behaviour’ (see also
Hudson, 2000, p. 228; Mainzer, 1996, p. 280). At best, the application of
complex systems theories to social work research is in its early exploratory
phases and certainly does not warrant a paradigm shift.
Complex systems ideas have potential to affirm the complexities of social
work practice and policy processes. Yet, as criticisms of these ideas show, we
must be wary of the simplistic application of these models to social work.
Two questions seem pertinent here: first, what aspects of social work can
complex systems theories illuminate that escape current practice models?
(Puddifoot, 2000, p. 92). For example, complex systems theories renew our
appreciation of the important role of local social interactions in creating,
not only reflecting, broader social processes (see Mainzer, 1996, pp. 276–9).
A second question is: how might we use these models in ways that bridge,
rather than widen, the gap between social work research and practice? Some
researchers suggest that qualitative research methods, which incorporate
inductive and non-linear knowledge development processes, can help to
illuminate complex social processes (see Vallacher and Nowak, 1997).

EBSCOhost - printed on 2/2/2023 10:21 AM via TORONTO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
 146 Social Work Theories in Context

Discussion Point

Reviewing systems theories

What are the strengths and limitations of systems theories for social work
practice within your practice context, or a context of practice that interests you?

Strengths and Limitations of Systems Theories in

Social Work
Throughout this chapter we have considered arguments for and against each
wave of systems theory. In this final section, we will summarize the overall
strengths and weaknesses of systems theories for achieving our purposes in
social work practice.

Strengths

A key strength of systems perspectives is that they provide a framework for

understanding and responding to people in their environments. Systems
approaches discourage the pathologization of either the individual or their
environment, instead encouraging the social worker to analyse the inter-
actions within and across systems. According to Mattaini and Meyer (2002,
p. 4), ‘The ecosystem perspective is a way of seeing complex phenomena
(the person and the environment) in their interconnected and multilayered
reality, to order and comprehend complexity and avoid oversimplification
and reductionism.’
In addition, systems theories can provide a unifying conceptual founda-
tion for social work as a profession focused on understanding and respond-
ing to people in their environment. As neo-classical economic discourses
increasingly dominate social work practice contexts, we will face intensi-
fied pressure to identify our contributions to social service delivery. The
systems perspective offers the profession an option for defining this con-
tribution. For example, as systems ‘specialists’, professional social workers
can provide forms of assessment at individual, group, community and
organizational levels that promote systemic understanding and sustainable
systemic change.
Systems approaches encourage social work professionals to respect the
contributions different methods make to practice and to develop basic

EBSCOhost - printed on 2/2/2023 10:21 AM via TORONTO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
 Three Waves of Systems Theories 147

competencies across the range of intervention approaches. Gitterman (1996,

p. 474) points out that

An ecological view helps us appreciate that no theory, concept, model or approach

can take everything into account. The complexity of the human condition
requires that we develop both a broad perspective as well as specific accommoda-
tions and competencies.

This framework can provide an antidote to competition between practice

methods; the message of systems theories is that we need a range of
perspectives and intervention methods.

Weaknesses

Despite the considerable influence of systems perspectives on the knowl-

edge base of social work, we should also recognize their substantial limita-
tions. Some social work commentators criticize the lack of clarity about core
systems concepts, such as what constitutes a system, what are the bound-
aries of a system, and what are the attributes of a system (see Mune, 1979,
p. 65). This lack of clarity contributes to an absence of both theoretical and
empirical justification of systems viewpoints in practice (Wakefield, 1996b,
p. 206). Instead, practitioners are invited to accept central claims derived
from systems theories, such as the claim that all parts of a system are
complexly intertwined and that changes in one part of the system will
inevitably lead to changes in other parts without any external justification of
these claims. In short, systems theories present an intuitively appealing, yet
largely untested, viewpoint for social work practice.
Some commentators point to inconsistencies between social work values
and systems theories (see Wakefield, 1996a and b). A focus on function and
exchange within systems can leave out questions of structural injustice
and abuse of power (Wakefield, 1996b, p. 201). For example, feminist theo-
rists have shown that family system functioning often depends on the
exploitation of women’s labour. Moreover, as Wakefield (ibid.) also points
out, the systemic focus on interactions and networks can cause social workers
to lose focus on the uniqueness of the person. In practice we may also
encounter concerns that a focus on individual and environment interactions
downplays the individual’s capacity and responsibility for change.
Critics are concerned that systems perspectives draw on discourses that
have little relevance to social work. For example, the first wave of systems
theory draws heavily on biological discourses, while the third wave draws
extensively from maths and physics discourses. Some commentators
question whether concepts from these discourses can be applied directly

EBSCOhost - printed on 2/2/2023 10:21 AM via TORONTO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
 148 Social Work Theories in Context

to social processes, such as social service delivery (Mune, 1979; Puddifoot,

2000; Wakefield, 1996b). In addition, as we discussed earlier, the specific
language used to describe key concepts, whether this is the language of the
biological sciences, physical sciences or complex mathematics, is likely to
alienate practitioners who already cover considerable conceptual terrain in
their work. If so, the importation of systems ideas from other disciplines will
further entrench the division between formal knowledge and practice
knowledge in social work.
A further issue is that systemic perspectives provide little guidance on how
to move from a holistic analysis to systemic intervention. All three waves of
systems perspectives help us to perceive the person-in-environment as a
unity, but to act we may need to break down this gestalt into smaller pieces.
One problem here is that a systems perspective recognizes all information
available to us but does not help us to prioritize it.
Finally, a systemic analysis does not necessarily enable us to use the
enormous bank of information gathered in the development of a systemic
analysis to form systemic action strategies; indeed, the sheer amount of
information may be prevent such action. As Leighninger (1978, p. 454)
provocatively asks: will social workers, ‘while recognizing the social nature
of many problems, find them so complex that they despair of solving them
and go back to individual therapy as the only profitable use of their talents?’
Proponents of systemic approaches, particularly ecosystems perspectives,
have argued that social workers should have a generic skill set in order to
practise holistically. This seems an incredible demand given the growing
diversity of social work practices. As Wakefield (1996a, p. 196) points out, in
most complex endeavours ‘specialisation rather than a comprehensive
approach by each individual increases efficiency and effectiveness’.

Conclusion
Systems perspectives have had substantial influence on the knowledge base
of professional social work. In this chapter we have explored three waves of
systems theories and their influence on social workers’ knowledge bases.
We can see that systems perspectives remain a contested view in social
work. At the very least, they provide a way of articulating the complexity of
interactions between individuals and their environments. For many social
workers this is an intuitively appealing framework. Even so, we can see
substantial concerns about the extensive adoption of these viewpoints in
practice. Notwithstanding these limitations, however, systems theories
remain key conceptual frameworks for contemporary social work practice.

EBSCOhost - printed on 2/2/2023 10:21 AM via TORONTO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
 Three Waves of Systems Theories 149

Summary Questions
1. What common criticism can be made of the applicability of each of the
three waves of systems theory to social work practices?
2. What are the key stages of ecosystems practice?
3. What are the characteristics of a complex system?

Reflection Exercise

Thinking about your role as a social worker, or your likely role in an area of
practice that interests you, discuss the comparative strengths and limits
of ecosystems and complex systems theories for extending your analysis of
service user needs.

Recommended Reading
Germain, C. and A. Gitterman The Life Model of Social Work Practice: Advances in
Theory and Practice, 2nd edn (Columbia University Press, New York 1996).
This book offers one of the leading formulations of the ecosystems perspective as a
practice model. It provides a thorough overview of the theory and practice of
ecosystems perspectives in practice.
Hudson, C.G. ‘The Edge of Chaos: A New Paradigm for Social Work?’, Journal of Social
Work Education, 36(2) (2000), 215–30.
This article offers an excellent overview of the application of complex systems
theories and chaos theories to social work.
Meyer, C.H. Assessment in Social Work Practice (New York: Columbia University Press,
1993).
The late Carol Meyer is a key leader in ecosystems perspectives in social work. This
widely cited text provides an accessible introduction to the use of ecosystems
perspectives in social work assessment. Chapter 6 provides an excellent explanation
of the use of ecomaps in social work assessment.
Wakefield, J. ‘Does Social Work Need the Eco-Systems Perspective? Part 1: Is the
Perspective Clinically Useful?’, The Social Service Review, 70(1) (1996a), 1–32.
Wakefield, J. ‘Does Social Work Need the Eco-Systems Perspective? Part 2: Does the
Perspective Save Social Work from Incoherence?’, The Social Service Review, 70(2)
(1996b), 183–213.
In these companion articles, Wakefield makes a powerful case against ecosystems
perspectives in social work and his argument has relevance for the application of

EBSCOhost - printed on 2/2/2023 10:21 AM via TORONTO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
 150 Social Work Theories in Context

other waves of systems theories. Wakefield argues that social work is unified by a
common purpose of promoting minimal distributive justice, and that an ecosystems
perspective is unnecessary and may be unhelpful for achieving this aim. These
articles provide an excellent critical analysis of the development and deployment of
systems perspectives in social work.

EBSCOhost - printed on 2/2/2023 10:21 AM via TORONTO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
 8
The Strengths Perspective

The strengths perspective is a relatively recent development in social work

theory. While social work theorists have long emphasized the strengths and
capacities of service users, it was not until the late 1980s that the strengths
perspective was fully articulated as a practice approach. The strengths per-
spective hails from North America, primarily from the work of Dennis
Saleebey, Charles Rapp and Anne Weick from the University of Kansas.
In recent years, the strengths perspective has gained popularity in many
countries and practice contexts (see Parton and O’Byrne, 2001). Originally
developed in mental health practice contexts, this perspective is now adapted
for a broad range of practice contexts including: child protection (see Turnell
and Edwards, 1999); addictions (van Wormer and Davis, 2003); develop-
mental disabilities (Quinn, 1998); and corrections (van Wormer, 2001).
The growing popularity of the strengths perspective can be partly
attributed to its embodiment of social work values, particularly its emphasis
on respect and service user self-determination. The strengths perspective
emphasizes optimism and creativity, and, in so doing, offers an alternative
to increasingly defensive and risk-averse practices that have become
commonplace as a result of the growing influence of the dominant dis-
courses we discussed in Chapter 2. In this chapter, we will define the
strengths perspective, its origins and its theoretical foundations. We will
overview the practice principles arising from this perspective and consider
its application to practice with individuals and communities. We turn first
to consider how the strengths perspective draws on the service discourses
discussed earlier and its relation to the other theories for social work prac-
tice outlined in the book.

The Strengths Perspective in Context

Figure 8.1 highlights the strengths perspective in relation to services
discourses and other theories for practice.

151
EBSCOhost - printed on 2/2/2023 10:21 AM via TORONTO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use