Talk:Anti-oppressive practice

Content suggestion with sources
Consider and reflect on knowledge base and theory that enables you to practice as an anti oppressive practitioner. The law and social policy is an extremely important influence on Social work practice, however it does not sufficiently stipulate how we should progress in any particular situation. It is the individual social worker who makes the decisions on how they choose to practice by referring to a knowledge base. According to Thompson (2000) the knowledge base represents, to a large extent, the consolidated knowledge of practitioners, theorists, and researchers who have covered similar ground in the past and have left us the legacy of their experiences and learning. Social work is known to be a ‘caring profession’ and when giving care there is usually an opposing view that what works for one person does not nesseserily work for another. This could result in ‘care versus control’ debate because where there is control there is power. Practitioners need to be fully aware of a power balance between service users and providers to work in an anti-oppressive manor. Anti oppressive practice can be condemned as ‘a gloss to help it [social work] to feel better about what is required to do’ (Humphries, 2004, p105). ‘Honour crime’, ‘non accidental injury’, ‘sex industry’, ‘sex offence’ and ‘knife crime’ are terms that have been softened to minimise the impact of the implication, but they do essentially represent vicious sadistic crimes that have significant impacts on the victims lives. This is why terminology needs to seriously be considered when dealing with either victims or perpetrators of the offence so that language is not misconstrued to be oppressive. Clifford and Burke (2004) claim that the powerful people will incorporate critical terms into their dominant discourses where possible. Power can be given to service providers when using work abbreviations and terminology that the service user may not be familiar with. Something as simple as asking a parent to attend a ‘LAC’ review might be confusing. Practitioners must include service users by communicating in a dialog that they too can understand. Discussing a case in abbreviations and legal terms can be disempowering to clients and considered oppressive. Speaking plainly and clearly is considered good working practice where the client can not only understand but become involved in making choices and decisions about their involvement with social services. Anti oppressive practice is about working with the service user to include them in facilitating a user-led and user-controlled service. Healthy professional relationships will help build the confidence of the service user to enable them to develop their own ideas about their level of involvement. Some of These developments in relationships are illustrated by Jones (see figure 1a). Figure 1a Continuum of relations between service users and providers. (Jones,1995:112) Although Jones graph is applied to services users with disabilities doing research the general principles underpins good practice that encourages choice and control thats all lies.

References:
 * Clifford,D. & Burke,B. (2009) Anti-Oppressive Ethics and Values in Social work. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
 * Humphries,B. (2004) ‘An unacceptable role for social work: implementing immigration policy, British journal of social work, 34:1, pg 93-107.
 * Jones,R. (1995) ‘Disability, discrimination and local authority social services: the social services context, in G. Zarb (ed), Removing disabling barriers. London: PSI pg 108-115
 * Thompson,N. (2000) Understanding Social Work, Preparing for Practice. Hampshire: Macmillian press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.66.254 (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Auto-archiving
FYI I'm adding an auto-archive bot to this page since all of the threads are several years old. —PermStrump ( talk )  22:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Article needs improvement
The wording in this article is difficult to follow. I tried to clean up the lead and might work on the body later, but hope someone will see this and feel inspired to clean it up some too. :) —PermStrump  ( talk )  22:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete citations
fix01.
 * Dominelli, L. (2002). Anti-oppressive social work theory and practice.
 * Lydia H, Anti-Oppressive Practice and Social Trinitarianism (2012)
 * Pitner & Sakamoto, 2005
 * Dalrymple and Burke, 1995
 * McNay, 1992
 * "What Is The Thompson PCS Model? – Youth Workin' It". Youthworkinit.com. 6 November 2012. Retrieved 2016-08-18.


 * Scourfield, 2003
 * Renzetti, 1992
 * Leventhal and Lundy, 1999
 * Dutton and Corvo, 2007
 * Thompson, 2012
 * Freire, 1972
 * Steve Myers, University of Salford, 2015
 * Thompson, 2011
 * Clifford, 1994

This article uses citations without providing full publisher and source details. These citations are incomplete, and are posted here for editors to work on before updating the inline citations in the article itself. I plan to fix what I can find online, but the assistance of sociology experts would be welcome.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Some of the concepts mentioned are also used inacurately — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.109.211 (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * part of what Dthomsen8 tells is true, but the rest i am unsure looks like a unintended classic tag bomb. For e.g. "Dominelli, L. (2002). Anti-oppressive social work theory and practice" it checks out as a book and probably an important one regarding the topic. Pcs model is linked (http://youthworkinit.com/thompson-pcs-model/). Also page view statistics is also kind of creepy on 25th it shows 623 visitors and the day after that tags are given. Other apa style inline citations pop up if you check, but for future wiki-users a thorough cross-check and link update effort from someone with access to journals is required.59.89.239.154 (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)