An assignment on

Social Work Theories

Jayakrishnhan.u

Submitted to Dr Suresh kumar Head the department of social work Urumu Dhanalakshmi college Trichy Submitted by Jayakrishnan.u P11W5008 1yr MSW Urumu Dhanalakshmi college Trichy

Dated this the 20th of October 2011

Contents
1. INTRODUCTION

2. SOCIAL ROLE THEORY

3. GESTALT THEORY

4. PROBLEM SOLVING THEORY

5. CONCUSION

6. BIBILIOGRAPHY

Introduction

Social work as a profession, while originating from different traditions, was closely connected with social movements at the beginning of the twentieth century, as is evident from the work of Alice Salomon, Jane Adams, Ilse Artl, Helena Radlinska and others that contributed to its first conceptualizations. Since then, social work has gone through different phases and has acquired local interpretations that, in many cases, reflect differences in the development of welfare regimes. Its common roots were lost not just as a result of these developments, but also in the collective memory. Selective memory has its own economy; in the case of social work, the professions collective memory became detached from the grassroots ideas that distinguished it from the charitable activities of the church. Reading the texts of women pioneers, we can see that the origins of social work were closely connected with social movements that contributed to the development of the basic principles of welfare states: equality, social justice, well-being and solidarity. There are some important theories of social work as follows.

Role Theory
Role theory concerns the tendency for human behaviors to form characteristic patterns that may be predicted if one knows the social context in which those behaviors appear. It explains those behavior patterns, (or roles) by assuming that persons within a context appear as members of recognized social identities (or positions) and that they and others hold ideas (expectations) about behaviors in that setting. Its vocabulary and concerns are popular among both social scientists and practitioners, and role concepts have generated both theory and a good deal of research. Nevertheless, conflicts have arisen about the use of role terms and the focus of role theory, and different versions of the theory have appeared among groups of authors who seem to be unaware of alternative versions. Role theory has been weakened by association with controversial theories in sociology, as well.

History, Differentiation, and Confusion

Role theory arose when social scientists took seriously the insight that social life could be compared with the theater, in which actors played predictable rles. This insight was pursued independently by three major contributors in the early 1930s with somewhat different agendas. For Ralph Linton (an anthropologist), role theory was a means for analyzing social systems, and roles were conceived as the dynamic aspects of societally recognized social positions (or statuses). In contrast, George Herbert Mead (a social philosopher) viewed roles

as the coping strategies that individuals evolve as they interact with other persons, and spoke of the need for understanding others perspectives (role taking) as a requisite for effective social interaction. And Jacob Moreno (a psychologist) saw roles as the habitual, sometimes harmful, tactics that are adopted by persons within primary relationships, and argued that imitative behavior (role playing) was a useful strategy for learning new roles. Additional insights for role theory were generated by other early authors, particularly Muzafer Sherifs studies of the effects of social norms; Talcott Parsonss functionalist theory, which stressed the importance of norms, consensus, sanctioning, and socialization; Robert Mertons analyses of role structures and processes; the works of Neal Gross, Robert Kahn, and their colleagues, which discussed role conflict and applied role concepts to organizations; Everett Hughess papers on occupational roles; Theodore Newcombs text for social psychology, which made extensive use of role concepts; and (in Europe) the seminal monographs of Michael Banton, Anne-Marie Rocheblave, and Ragnar Rommetveit, as well as Ralf Dahrendorfs essay Homo Sociologicus. The contrasting insights of these early contributors affected many subsequent writers, and various traditions of role theory have since appeared. Unfortunately, advocates for (or critics of) these differing traditions often write as if they are unaware of other versions. In addition, advocates may propose inconsistent uses for terms, or contrasting definitions for concepts, that are basic in role theory. To illustrate, for some authors the term role refers only to the concept of social position, for others it designates the behaviors characteristic of social position members, and for still others it denotes shared expectations held for the behaviors of position members. Such inconsistent uses pose problems for the unwary reader. Also, role theorists may disagree about substantive issues. For example, some authors use role concepts to describe the social system, whereas others apply it to the conduct of the individual. Again, some writers assume that roles are always tied to functions, whereas others conceive roles as behaviors: that conform to expectations, that are directed towards other in the system, that are volitional, that validate the actors status, or that project a self-image. Such differences in stance have reflected both accidents of intellectual history and the fact that role theorists have wrestled with differing social system forms. Despite these differences, role theorists tend to share a basic vocabulary, an interest in the fact that human behavior is contextually differentiated and is associated with the social position of the actor, and the assumption that behavior is generated (in part) by expectations that are held by the actor and others. This means that much of role theory presumes a thoughtful, phenomenally aware participant, and role researchers tend to adopt methods that call for the observing of roles and for asking respondents to report about their own or others expectations. Moreover, it also means that role theory may be contrasted with alternative theoretical positions that give stronger emphasis to unconscious motives or behavior-inducing forces of which the actor may be unaware (such as mechanisms that are not obvious but that serve to maintain structured inequalities of power, wealth, or status).

Functionalist Role Theory

One early perspective in role theory reflected functionalism. Functionalist thought arose from the contributions of Talcott Parsons and was, at one time, the dominant orientation in American sociology. This theory made use of role concepts, and some authors continue, today, to write as if role theory was or is largely an attempt to formalize functionalism. Functionalist theory was concerned with the problem of explaining social order. Stable but differentiated behaviors were thought to persist within social systems because they accomplished functions and because actors in those systems shared expectations for behaviors. Such consensual expectations (or roles) constituted norms for conduct, and actor conformity to norms was induced either because others in the system imposed sanctions on the actor or because the actor internalized them. In addition, those in the system were thought to be aware of the norms they held and could be counted on to teach them to (i.e., to socialize) neophytes as the latter entered the system. Functionalist thought has been under attack since the 1950s, and many of its basic assumptions have been challenged. Critics have pointed out that persisting behaviors may or may not be functional for social systems, that norms for conduct are often in conflict, that actor conformity need not be generated by norms alone but can also reflect other modes of thought (such as beliefs or preferences), that norms might or might not be supported by explicit sanctions, that norms internalized by the actor may be at odds with those supported by external forces, and that processes of socialization are problematic. Above all, critics have noted that social systems are not the static entities that functionalist thought portrayed, and that human conduct often responds to power and conflicts of interest in ways that were ignored by functionalists. As a result of these attacks, interest in functionalist role theory has declined, although it is still possible to find writers who advocate (e.g., Bates and Harvey 1975) or denounce (Connell 1979) role theory as if it were merely a gloss for functionalism.

Role Conflict and Organizational Analysis

Interest in organizational role theory began with the works of Neal Gross, Robert Kahn, and their associates, which questioned the assumption that consensual norms were required for social stability. Instead, these writers suggested that formal organizations were often characterized by role conflict (i.e., opposing norms that were held for actors by powerful others), that such conflicts posed problems for both the actors and the organizations in which they appeared, and that strategies for coping with or resolving role conflict could be studied. These insights stimulated both texts that applied role concepts to organizational analysis and many studies of role conflict and role conflict resolution in organizational contexts (see, for example, van de Vliert 1979; Van Sell et al. 1981; Fisher and Gitelson 1983).

In addition, the concept of role conflict has proven attractive to scholars who wanted to conceptualize or study problems that are faced by disempowered persons, particularly married women who must cope with the opposing demands of the workplace, home maintenance, and support for their husbands (Stryker and Macke 1978; Lopata 1980; Skinner 1980). Unfortunately (for the argument), evidence suggests that role conflicts are not always shunned by disempowered persons (see Sales et al. 1980) and that resolving those conflicts does not necessarily lead to empowerment. Despite these problems, research on role conflict within the organization continues actively, and some proponents of the organizational perspective have recently turned their attention to the events of role transitionthat is, to phenomena associated with entry into or departure from a role (see Allen and van de Vliert 1984; Ebaugh 1988).

The Structural Perspective

Another use of role concepts has appeared among structuralists and network theorists. This third perspective reflects the early contributions of anthropologists such as S. F. Nadel and Michael Banton, sociologists such as Marion Levy, and social psychologists ranging from Dorwin Cartwright and Frank Harary to Oscar Oeser. As a rule, structuralists concern themselves with the logical implications of ways for organizing social systems (conceived as social positions and roles) and eschew any discussion of norms or other expectation concepts. To date, much of the work in structural role theory has been expressed in formal, mathematical terms (see Burt 1982; Winship and Mandel 1983). This means that it has had greater appeal for scholars who are mathematically trained. It also constitutes one form of network analysis (although other network perspectives have appeared that do not use role concepts).

Role Theory among Symbolic Interactionalists

Interest in role theory has also appeared among symbolic interactionists who were influenced not only by George Herbert Mead but also by Everett Hughes, Irving Goffman, and other influential figures. In general, symbolic interactionists think of a role as a line of action that is pursued by the individual within a given context. Roles are affected by various forces, including preexisting norms applying to the social position of the actor, beliefs and attitudes that the actor holds, the actors conception and portrayal of self, and the definition of the situation that evolves as the actor and others interact. Roles need not have common elements, but they are likely to become quite similar among actors who face common problems in similar circumstances. These concepts have been applied by symbolic interactionists to a host of interesting concerns (see, for example, Scheibe 1979; Gordon and Gordon 1982; Ickes and Knowles 1982; Stryker and Serpe 1982; Zurcher 1983; Hare 1985), and a continuing and useful contribution has flowed

from Ralph Turners interest in the internal dynamics of roles and the fact that roles tend to evolve over time (1979, 1990). Unfortunately, some persons within this perspective have also been guilty of tunnel vision and have produced reviews in which role theory is portrayed largely as an extension of symbolic interactionist thought (see Heiss 1981; Stryker and Statham 1985). In addition, symbolic interactionism has attracted its share of criticismamong other things, for its tendencies to use fuzzy definitions, recite cant, and ignore structural constraints that affect behaviorsand some of these criticisms have tended to rub off on role theory.

Cognitive Perspectives in Role Theory

Empirical research in role theory has been carried out by cognitive social psychologists representing several traditions (see Biddle 1986, for a general review). Some of this work has focused on role playing, some of it has concerned the impact of group norms, some of it has studied the effects of anticipatory role expectations, and some of it has examined role taking. In addition, cognitive social psychologists have studied conformity to many forms of expectations, including instrumental norms, moral norms, norms attributed to others, selffulfilling prophesies, beliefs about the self (such as those induced by identity projection or labeling), beliefs about others, and preferences or attitudes. These studies suggest that roles are often generated by two or more modes of expectational thought, and several models have also appeared from cognitive theorists reflecting this insight (see, for example, Bank et al. 1985). Unfortunately, much of this effort ignores expectations for social positions and concentrates, instead, on expectations for individual actors. Cognitive role theory also tends to ignore the implications of its findings for structural analysis, and thus appears to be atheoretical from a sociological perspective. However, Bruce Biddle (1979) has authored a broad vision for role theory that uses information from cognitive research to build models for social system analysis.

Recent Trends in Role Theory

Four recent trends in the development of role theory should be noted. First, although the term role continues to appear in most textbooks for basic courses in sociology and social psychology, it normally does not appear by itself as a major concept but rather is likely to surface in chapters on such topics as the self, groups, institutions, and role taking. In contrast, extensive discussions of roles and related concepts may be found in texts for various types of advanced courses for these fields. To illustrate, consider recent texts for courses on group dynamics. In the latest edition of his highly successful work, Donelson Forsyth (1999) devotes an entire chapter to norms, roles, and related issues, and in her new text, Joann Keyton (1999) focuses a major chapter on group member roles, group norms, and associated materials. As a rule, portrayals of role theory in such sources is straightforward:

roles are deemed to refer to specific patterns of behavior that are associated with individuals or recognized identities; norms are shared expectations for conduct that may apply to all persons in the group or only to certain identities (such as leaders); and related concepts such as socialization and role conflict appear frequently. Second, many authors continue to employ role concepts for discussing social relations within a specific institution or for portraying the lives of those who share an occupational identity. For example, a substantial literature has now appeared concerned with the role of the school principal, and a useful summary of this work may be found in a recent review by Ronald Heck and Philip Hallinger (1999). In another example, Biddle (1997) provides an extensive overview of recent research on the role of the school teacher. Again, much of this applied work makes clear use of concepts from role theory, with the role term normally used to refer to differentiated behaviors, whereas notions about behaviors that are thought to be appropriate for roles are normally termed norms or role expectations. Third, for at least a generation, authors who have written about differences between the conduct, problems, or outlooks of men and women have used role theory as a vehicle for interpreting their findings, and this interest continues. To illustrate, for years a key journal that publishes studies concerned with gender and its problems has borne the title Sex Roles, but recently a particularly strong advocate for using role theory to interpret evidence about gender differences in behavior has appeared in the person of Alice Eagly (1987, 1995). Eagly asserts that such differences appear as a result of structural forces in societieshence may differ among countriesbut are sustained and reproduced because men and women develop roleappropriate expectations for those behaviors. Given the earlier, pioneering studies of Margaret Mead, such assertions would seem unexceptionable, and yet they have touched off a storm of criticism from evolutionary psychologists who prefer to believe that gender differences in conduct are hard wired and culturally universal, and have arisen from the mechanisms of Darwinian selection. (See, for example, Archer [1996].) Unfortunately, in her 1987 book on the subject, Eagly did not make clear that her argument involved only one version of role theory, and it has seemingly not occurred to her evolutionary critics that there might be other versions of the role story that would also bear on their concerns. So, in criticizing her, they have made foolish assertions about the scope of social role theory, and have condemned it for assumed stances that most role theorists would not advocate. Fourth and last, every few years interesting works are published by authors who have apparently just discovered some version of role theory and are intrigued with its potential for generating insights or resolving problems in cognate fields. A good example of this type of work appears in a recent article by James Montgomery (1998). Montgomery begins by noting that, in a widely cited work, Granovetter (1985) had argued that economic action is embedded in social relationships and that rational choice theorists have subsequently explored this insight through research on prisoners dilemma games in which long-term interaction is thought to be governed by general assumptions about calculative trust. Empirical support for this thesis has been weak, anddrawing on work by James March (1994)Montgomery argues that a stronger case can be made for assuming that, when engaged in long-term interaction, persons make

assumptions about the social identities which they and others have assumed, and that these identities are associated with shared expectations about behaviors that are appropriate in the relationship. To illustrate, Montgomery suggests that expectations are far different when one assumes the other to be a profit-maximizing businessperson than when the other is assumed to be a nonstrategic friend. Montgomerys arguments are well wrought, and their implications are spelled out through techniques of formal logic. Moreover, Montgomery points out how his arguments relate to recent work on various cognate concerns such as identity processes, artificial intelligence, situation theory, and cognitive psycholgy. So far so good, but (like too many recent converts) Montgomery seems not to be familiar with the bulk of work in the role field, and this leads him to make foolish errors. To illustrate, he refers to social identities as roles and shared expectations about behaviors as rules idiosyncratic uses that will surely confuse readers. Worse, he seems not to be familiar with prior work by role theorists on his topic, including major works within the structural role theory tradition; with Ralph Lintons writings on the evolution of roles; and with the fact that much of his argument was actually made forty years ago by John Thibaut and Harold Kelley (1959). It does not help work in any field if scholars are unwilling to familiarize themselves with prior work on their subject, and one wonders how role theory is to make progress in the future if even its advocates are unwilling to do their homework.

Role Theory and the Future

As the foregoing examples suggest, role theory is currently weakened by terminological and conceptual confusion, diffuse effort, and the narrow visions of some of its proponents and critics. Nevertheless, role theory concerns central issues for sociology and social psychology, and assumptions about social positions, role behaviors, and expectations for human conduct appear widely in current social thought. Role theory will prosper as ways are found to discuss these issues with clarity, consistency, and breadth of vision.

Gestalt theory
by Max Wertheimer (1924) What is Gestalt theory and what does it intend? Gestalt theory was the outcome of concrete investigations in psychology, logic, and epistemology. The prevailing situation at the time of its origin may be briefly sketched as follows. We go from the world of everyday events to that of science, and not unnaturally assume that in making this transition we shall gain a deeper and more precise understanding of essentials. The transition should mark an advance. And yet,

though one may have learned a great deal, one is poorer than before. It is the same in psychology. Here too we find science intent upon a systematic collection of data, yet often excluding through that very activity precisely that which is most vivid and real in the living phenomena it studies. Somehow the thing that matters has eluded us.

Gestalt therapy
Gestalt therapy is highly efficient existential experimental psychotherapy. The process is based upon the relationship between the therapist and the patient and the experience in the current moment or as it is called in Gestalt theory - here and now. Gestalt therapist has a little different role than traditional psychotherapist. Being only an assistant in the course of the treatment and having deep understanding of Gestalt perception, Gestalt therapist manages to obtain necessary result with full involvement of the patient looking for improvement. The mutual work of both parties forms the behavior which eliminates the problem. At first it happens within the frame of the group session, and then the same behavior is transferred to the usual environment of the individual. The main accent is not on words, but on direct experience of the person.

Gestalt concept
Gestalt therapy is based upon a number of perceptions and developed thanks to the works in psychoanalysis (William Reich), followers of field theory (Lewin, for instance), existentialism and experimental approach of Gestalt specialists. Different principles merged together or at least produced certain influence upon the Gestalt theory and shaped it the way we have it now. Conception of the whole, holism made the person self-regulating and independent entity and the Gestalt therapist regards the client as a functional whole striving towards maturity. The whole is more important than its separate parts taken together. Awareness conception came from the works of Reich and field theory influenced the Gestalt theory greatly too demonstrating that every individual should be taken in context of his environment.

Approach
Different approach to previous experience of the client determined the methods which Gestalt therapy employs. The past of the patient is of no particular importance and Gestalt therapy does not concentrate on it, but uses it to solve the problem. As the past influences the decisions of the individual here and now, Gestalt therapist shows it to the person through the dialogue and experimental methods thus expanding the awareness of the person. The patient learns self-regulation and methods to tackle the load of the past, which is in the way of adequate perception of present events. One should accept oneself completely. The relief comes with full awareness. It will help to be free from the burden, which keeps the person captivated and directs the individuality. The development starts after the individual acknowledges pain of the past and only when the person becomes free from fear and

nervousness. Patient is completely responsible for what he does and the alternative he or she chooses.

Problem solving theory

The roots of problem solving have been reviewed in the historical account of its development, and will now be examined from a different perspective. Although he included it in the last edition of Social Work Treatment, Turner indicated then that he did not see Perlman's conceptualization as a completed theory but rather as a "system of propositions from which hypotheses could be developed and a theory built" (Turner, 1986, p. 7). Compton and Galaway also refer to problem solving as a process or model rather than a theory, and they describe it as "a series of interactions between the client system and the practitioner, involving integration of feeling, thinking and doing, guided by a purpose and directed toward achieving an agreed-upon goal" (1994, p. 43). It is our view that, based on Turner's definition of a practice theory in Chapter 1 of this book, it is now clearly to be viewed as a social work theory. If we accept this, what can we look to as its conceptual foundations?

The concept
Problem solving is the rational process human beings use to negotiate a world of reality that is extremely complicated and, at times, both unknowable and unpredictable. Therefore, it is not always possible for people to follow the obvious guideline the model sets forth, that one must choose the path that leads most directly to a desired goal. In reviewing this complex picture, DeRoos notes that the rational decisions one makes for problem solving represent a subjective orientation to an incomplete picture of the objective world. This incomplete picture is our representation of objective reality, a simplified model of objective reality. Our actions are then in accordance with the model, not with objective reality (1990, p. 278). Common wisdom and experience seem to indicate to people that they can never know all that they need to know in order to make a "perfect" decision, so they tend to reach for those that are "good enough." Nevertheless, in order to achieve even a modest level of success, information must be assembled and processed, and for this, people use a mental model called a "heuristic." In logic, a heuristic device is a piece of knowledge or "rule of thumb learned by trial and error" (McPeck, 1981, p. 17). Heuristics serve the problem solver as a template for decision making when algorithms would cost too much in the amount of information, processing power, or time needed (DeRoos, 1990, p. 278). Algorithms are procedures that are guaranteed to solve all classes of problems (Gilhooly, 1988, p. 22) and are clearly of much more use in the world of mathematics and science than in the world of human affairs.

Wimsatt notes that heuristics have certain characteristics that limit their usefulness as tools. They do not guarantee a correct solution although they cost substantially less in time, money, and effort than an algorithm (assuming that one is available for the specific human situation), and they produce systematic patterns of failure and error (DeRoos, 1990, p. 278). Despite these limitations, human beings are not as constrained as they might be in their problem solving because, "through the convergent application of multiple heuristics, one increases the likelihood of attaining a desirable outcome" (DeRoos, p. 280); although heuristic correspondence with the real world may be imperfect, it is sufficiently congruent with reality to allow people to function adequately (p. 281). It appears that "heuristic problem solving focuses on the most solution-relevant variables (from the perspective of the problem solver) in a particular situation and ignores other variables. In that manner a very complex process can be coped with" (Osmo & Rosen, 1994, p. 123). In addition to using heuristic devices, human beings need to have knowledge of the world and their specific problematic issue, and the ability to apply this knowledge in a problem-solving process (DeRoos, 1990, p. 278).

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
It remained for Compton and Galaway, in 1975, to elaborate upon and expand the basic model that Perlman had first conceptualized nearly twenty years before, and to make their thoughts available to social work students in textbook form. The authors note that their expansion and deepening of the Perlman model resulted in "extending the problem solving process to groups, organizations, and communities and in broadening our model to include more emphasis than one finds in Perlman's work on transactions with and change in other social systems" (1994, p. 49). As Compton and Galaway have theorized extensively about how problem solving works, much of the following material will be drawn from their deliberations (1994). The authors note that all of their assumptions are based on five theories drawn from those related to human development and the transactions people undertake with the social environment. These theories include systems theory, communications theory, role theory, ego psychology, and concepts of human diversity (1994, p. 57). Among the many assumptions they make, one is that problems in living do not represent weakness and failure on the part of a client, but rather are the outcome of a natural process of human growth and change (1994, p. 44). If problems are an inevitable part of life, the capacity to solve them is also accessible to people. The process may be blocked for clients because they lack knowledge, have inadequate resources, or experience emotional responses that impair their ability to problem solve. However, as part of the problem-solving method, the social worker consciously works at creating a collaborative relationship that can be used to motivate and support clients to do the hard work of thinking and feeling through their problematic situation.

The relationship between client and worker in all modalities of practice is a source of encouragement and creative thinking in the problem-solving process. Of this Compton and Galaway say: Relationship is the medium of emotions and attitudes that acts to sustain the problem solving process as practitioner and client work together toward some purpose. Thus ... the problem solving process can be thought of as operating through a partnership resting on the ability of each partner to relate and communicate with the other (1994, p. 43). Clearly, the assumption is that client and worker will be able to communicate about problems, goals, resources, planning, and implementation. However, the authors are firm that the "burden of rational headwork lies with the practitioner, not the client," so although clients could benefit from learning the problem-solving process, there is no expectation that they must bring that knowledge with them to the helping interaction. In fact, the position is taken by some problem-solving theorists that clients experience some of their problems in living because they lack well-developed problem-solving skills. For example, Hepworth and Larsen devote a chapter of their text to outlining a method for teaching problem-solving skills to clients who lack this experience so that they can apply it in daily interactions (Hepworth & Larsen, 1990, pp. 415^424). Hepworth and Larsen outline the assumptions they make about teaching problem solving as follows: (1) people want to control their own lives and to feel competent to master the tasks they see as important; (2) motivation for change rests on some integration between a system's goal and its hope-comfort imbalance; (3) the social worker is always engaged in attempting to have some interactions or transactions with or among systems; (4) systems are open, and input across their boundaries is critical for their growth and change; (5) while a system must have a steady state for its functioning, it is constantly in flux; and (6) all human systems are purposive and goal seeking (1990, p. 57).

USING PROBLEM SOLVING TO ACHIEVE CHANGE

Compton and Galaway make the point that while the written description of problem solving is linear in nature, the application of the model in real life situations is circular. In any of the stages, the worker or client could loop back to an earlier stage or forward to a step that lies in the future, if the circumstances require it. The process is flexible in nature, allowing considerable latitude in its application. A modified summary of Compton and Galaway's short form outline of the problem-solving model follows. The longer form maintains the basic sequence, but elaborates on each step (Compton & Galaway, 1994, pp. 59-61

Problem-solving model

I.

Contact Phase

A. Problem identificationas seen by client, others, and worker. Problem for work is defined.

B. Goal identificationshort- and long-term goals stated. What does client wish for or need? What resources are available? C. Contractpreliminary in nature as it consists of clarifying the agency's resources and committing to further study of the problem. D. Explorationof the client's motivation, opportunities, and capacities. II. Contract Phase A. Assessment and evaluation How are problems related to needs of client system? What factors contribute to the creating and maintaining of the problem? What resources and strengths does client have? What knowledge and principles could be applied from social work practice? How can the facts best be organized within a theoretical framework in order to resolve the problem? B. Formulation of a plan of action Set reachable goals Examine alternatives and their likely outcomes

Determine appropriate method of service Identify focus of change efforts Clarify roles of work and client Prognosiswhat is worker's hope for success?

III. Action Phase A. Carrying out the plan Specify point of intervention and assign tasks Identify resources and services to be used Indicate who is to do what and when B. Termination Evaluate with client system accomplishments and their meaning Learn with client about reasons for lack of success Talk about ways to maintain gains Cope with ending of relationship Review supports in natural network C. Evaluation A continual process throughout contact Were purposes accomplished? Were appropriate methods chosen to induce change? What has client learned that can be used in ongoing problem solving? What can worker learn to help with similar cases?

PROBLEMS WITH APPLYING THE MODEL One of the difficulties in applying problem solving to real-life situations is that it is too challenging to process all of the information called for in the various stages (Osmo & Rosen, 1994, p. 123) and as a consequence, people choose the solution that best satisfies, although it may be far from optimal. In a more specific analysis, Johnson and Johnson identify the blocks that exist to using problem solving effectively in groups. However, with some accommodation, the issues they raise relate to problem solving in all human contexts (1975, pp. 269-270). Their list follows: 1. Lack of clarity in stating the problem: this step requires time, as the process is bound to fail if people attempt to solve the wrong problem, or one that is only partially defined. 2. Not getting the needed information: minimal information results in poor problem definition, fewer alternative strategies, with consequences inaccurately predicted. 3. Poor communication among those involved in the process: communication is central to the entire method from definition to task allocation, so clarity and comprehensiveness must remain goals of the interchange. 4. Premature choice or testing of alternative strategies: when the process discourages creative thinking and free expression, a direction which has not been thoroughly discussed might be chosen. 5. Climate in which decisions are made is critical or demands conformity: such a situation violates the self-determination value of social work and impoverishes the process. 6. Lack of skills in problem solving: people can be trained to use the method in the context of their current problem. 7. Motivation is lacking: people who problem solve must have some need to change their situation and hope that it can be changed. Pressure to change may come from many sources, but the experience of engaging in the process itself can generate hope. TREATMENT: PRINCIPAL THERAPEUTIC CONCEPTS In the early conceptualization of this approach, Perlman conceived of problem solving as her contribution to what social casework should be. In that conceptualization, it was clearly seen as a process rather than a goal and much effort was put into thinking about how to make the process happen. For her, the process involved an active engagement of the client in recognition

and ownership of the problem. She was strongly influenced by the work of John Dewey and his conviction that learning was problem solving (Perlman, 1957, p. 247). This notion fits very well with Perlman's own conviction that social work practice had to move away from an overemphasis on pathology to an increased recognition of the health or the strengths the client possessed to deal with the problem. This was also a good fit with Perlman's original position, in which she did not see the problem as intrapsychic or within the client, but primarily as a problem or problems in daily living that impeded the level of satisfaction the client experienced in daily activities. Thus, the problem-solving process is a tool for resolving problems that arise in the course of everyday life (Bunston, 1985) and impede the level of satisfaction persons experience in their daily activities. Hepworth and Larsen outline the assumptions they make about teaching problem solving as follows: 1. People want to control their own lives and to feel competent to master the tasks they see as important; 2. Motivation for change rests on some integration between a system's goal and its hopecomfort imbalance; 3. The social worker is always engaged in attempting to have some interactions or transactions with or among systems; 4. systems are open, and input across their boundaries is critical for their growth and change; 5. While a system must have a steady state for its functioning, it is constantly in flux; and 6. All human systems are purposive and goal seeking (1990, p. 57).

Conclusion
Social work is a diverse profession. It is not easily defined and, as a result, is often misunderstood by the general public and the greater community. One thing remains prominent: social work is a profession of people helping people. Despite possible confusion about the daily activities of social workers, there is growing recognition that social work plays an important role in todays society. Children, seniors, families, communities, the rich, the poor, and the middle class are all represented among the many clients who benefit directly from social work. Social work clients are found in all quarters of the country. Social work is a global profession, similar to other professions, with many of its efforts designed to assist and stimulate an enriched and informed practice strategy rich in methods designed to incorporate strategy at the grass roots level. The sound knowledge in theories of any profession will give a better practice.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. THEORIES AND METHODS OF SOCIAL WORK Exploring different perspectives Edited by vesna lesko ek Faculty of Social Work, University of Ljubljana, 2009 2. INTRODUCING SOCIAL WORK. BY LENA DOMINELLI. 3. MORDERN SOCIAL WORK THEORY. BY MALCOME PAYNE, JO CAMPLING. LYCEUM BOOKS 1997. 4. ESSENTIAL THEORY FOR SOCIAL WORK PARCTICE.BY CHRIS BECKETT. SAGE BOOKS 2006.

The end