Historical Divides And Ethical Obligations In Social Work ✓ Solved

Historical Divides And Ethical Obligations Within Social Workthe Natio

Analyze the historical divides, such as the schism between Jane Addams and Mary Richmond, and examine their influence on current social work practice concerning policy advocacy and action. Discuss whether these divides still exist in contemporary social work and how they might hinder social workers from fulfilling their ethical obligations to engage in social and political action. Consider if such differentiations are meaningful within the profession and explain their significance, supported by relevant scholarly references, including Jansson (2018).

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Social work is fundamentally rooted in a tradition of social reform and advocacy aimed at promoting social justice and addressing inequalities. Historically, the profession has experienced ideological divides that have shaped contemporary practices. Understanding these divides provides insight into current challenges and opportunities for social workers to fulfill their ethical obligations, particularly related to political action and policy advocacy.

The Historical Divides in Social Work

Two prominent figures in early social work exemplify differing approaches and philosophies that have historically divided the profession. Jane Addams, often regarded as a pioneer of social reform, emphasized social activism, community organizing, and a holistic approach to addressing social issues (Jansson, 2018). Her work with Hull House exemplified societal engagement beyond individual casework. Conversely, Mary Richmond had a clinical focus, emphasizing casework, individual treatment, and a scientific approach to social work (Jansson, 2018). Richmond's emphasis was on diagnostic methods, professionalism, and individualized service delivery, which contrasted with Addams’s broader advocacy and reformist stance.

Impact of Historical Divides on Modern Practice

These philosophical differences laid the groundwork for ongoing tensions within the profession, often leading to a dichotomy between macro and micro practice. Macrosocial work, inspired by Addams’s advocacy, involves policy change, community organizing, and social activism. Micro practice, aligned more with Richmond’s approach, focuses on individual counseling and direct service (Jansson, 2018). However, these distinctions are increasingly blurred in contemporary social work, which recognizes the importance of integrated practice—addressing individual needs within a broader policy context.

Existence of Schisms Today

While the overt schisms of the past are less visible today, debates about the role of social workers persist. Some practitioners prioritize direct service, citing resource constraints or personal preference, while others advocate for macro-level policy interventions (Hepworth et al., 2020). These ongoing divides can be perceived as barriers to fulfilling ethical obligations outlined by the NASW, particularly regarding political action and social justice advocacy.

Barriers to Political Engagement

Several barriers hinder social workers from engaging in political advocacy. Organizational constraints, workload pressures, lack of training in policy advocacy, and tokenistic organizational cultures can diminish motivation for activism (Hepworth et al., 2020). Additionally, systemic issues such as political polarization and limited resources further restrict social workers’ capacity to influence policy effectively.

Significance of Differentiations

Despite the blurred lines between macro and micro practice, these differentiations serve an important purpose. They help articulate specific roles and competencies required for addressing diverse client needs and systemic issues. Moreover, terminology such as "macro" and "micro" social work fosters professional identity and guides educational curricula and practice standards.

Conclusion

The historical divides between advocates like Addams and Richmond continue to influence contemporary social work, shaping perceptions of professional roles and responsibilities. Recognizing and addressing these divides can enhance social workers’ capacity to engage fully in political and social advocacy, aligning practice with the profession’s ethical commitments to social justice (Jansson, 2018). Overcoming barriers requires organizational change, improved training, and a reaffirmation of social work’s advocacy roots to ensure progress toward social equity and justice.

References

• Hepworth, D. H., Rooney, R., Rooney, G., Strom-Gottfried, K., & Larsen, J. (2020). Direct social work practice: Theory and skills (11th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Jansson, B. S. (2018). Becoming an effective policy advocate: From policy practice to social justice (8th ed.). Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning.
• Reamer, F. J. (2018). Ethical standards in social work: A review of the NASW code of ethics. Social Work, 63(2), 97–102.
• Weiss-Gal, I. (2018). The evolution of social work: From social reform to social justice. International Social Work, 61(4), 536–550.
• Hepworth, D. H., Rooney, R., Rooney, G., Strom-Gottfried, K., & Larsen, J. (2020). Direct social work practice: Theory and skills (11th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Payne, M. (2014). Modern social work theory (4th ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Dominelli, L. (2017). Anti-oppressive social work theory and practice. Macmillan International Higher Education.
• Ginsberg, D. (2016). The role of macro practice in contemporary social work: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Social Work Education, 52(3), 305–317.
• Kirst-Ashman, K. K. (2020). Introduction to social work & social welfare: Critical thinking perspectives (5th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• National Association of Social Workers (NASW). (1999). Code of Ethics. NASW Press.