Talk:Social work/Archive 1

Previous discussions:


 * Archive 1 (2001 to March 2005) - Disscussion on how to define Social Worker and to what extent extreme or unprofessional behaviour should be included in the entry. The user  Clutch who was at the centre of the debate appears to have been banned - at least for the time being.

I'm removing the following:

 *  They generally force their "help" on people who don't want it, and ignore human rights in their quest to "save" people. Social workers are trained to place their feelings and gut instincts supreme above reason, rationality, and respect for human dignity. Social workers typically act as repressive agents of fascist regimes, usually working hand in hand with police agencies to carry out low intensity eugenics programs against the poor and working classes.

It is highly POV, and (in my opinion) rather bizarre. And if you must add such nonsense to articles, Clutch, at least have the honesty not to mark them as "minor edits" - "minor" might be a spelling fix, or adding a missing full stop, but not this. --Camembert

It's really not that bad, see some people, like Clutch, think that. It's pov. So it should say, "Some people think they force their "help" onto others"... but dont let me force my pov on pov unto you.


 * I'm sorry, but even qualifying these statements with "critics argue" leaves them looking very bizarre - who are these people who think that social workers are "repressive agents of fascist regimes" who "carry out low intensity eugenics programs", as opposed to "emplyees of democratic governments" who "work to improve the living conditions of the socially disadvantaged" (or whatever)? I'm fed up with edit wars, so I'll leave it be for now, but this seems like a very extreme view to be taking up 80% of the article. --Camembert


 * I agree. The removed text should stay removed. It is not all encyclopedic - let alone the fact that it is very POV and essayish. --mav

Well, its not gonna be able to stay as is, but its at least a valid point that some people do see social workers as a very bad and dysfunctional "service". Recently, Oregon apoligized for forced sterilizations which were conducted for about 70 years by social workers. However, 2 sentences of description followed by 20 sentences of unsubstantiated criticism is not a good article-there needs to be more fact.

I think all social workers are pedophilians that should be there too. --BL

no you dont, yer just saying that to be extra argumentative.

Social workers actually turn a blind eye to pedophilia at times; do a google search for "The Weidner Method" and read up. I also have personal experience that backs up what is written in the Weidner Method. --Clutch 01:30 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

Oh I agree, social services in America is in a sorry state, Im just saying its arguing ad absurdium to state, "I think all social workers are pedophilians that should be there too."

Karl how is the current version pov?

"For example, social workers associated with adoption services are often accused of kidnapping whilst others are accused of operating a program of eugenics which targets the poor, racial minorities, and the working class. "

what an interesting view of social workers you have. Which countries are you refering to? What types of social workers are you refeing to? Perhaps public health nurses engage in eugenics? Often accused of kidnapping? I don't hear about it in our national paper, or on our national radio. I happen to know social workers personally who have worked in the US. I'm sorry I don't think so. Specific abuses do not make all social workers. Often specific abuses have more to do with the court system and the laws of the country. It sounds like a conspiricy theory to me. Karl


 * Yes, I was thinking of adding a link to conspiracy theory myself, but I've never been completely sure what constitutes one --Camembert

OK, I've tried to add a bit - it is possible to be critical of social workers without actually thinking they're involved in an international conspiracy, or that they kidnap babies or anything. I'd just remind everybody that this article is not about "Social services in America" or whatever, and in my view, it ought ideally to be quite a simple page detailing what social workers actually do without getting into specific criticisms which are probably only relevant to one geographical area, or one particular agency. Clearly, there still needs to be more on that. --Camembert
 * how frequent is "frequently"? Oh, it happens "a lot."  I see.  Yes, this is an outrage.  Thanks for tipping us off, Clutch.  Your writing is to be prized, for sure for sure.

The US Government argues that this is POV. 129.186.80.124 02:36 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

My wife is a social worker. 90 per cent of what she does is psychotherapy, combined with a bit of what she calls "classical social work" in connecting patients up with agencies for housing, medical care, etc. She has a private practice and works part time for a coalition of mostly non-governmental social agencies. She usually works in coordination with physicians, particularly psychiatrists. In her whole career, she has only worked for one government agency, the department of correction, providing therapy to convicts. She never turned a single convict in to the guards.

There are many social workers who do not work for governments and even granting the entire thesis of the cruel orphan warden that seems to be the bulk of this article, most social workers do not work for governments or indeed have much control over the lives of their clients, patients, or whatever you want to call them. The article is badly balanced toward the government employee type and ignores all the others. Ortolan88

Should we move this to social worker? These seem to be distinct topics. --Eloquence


 * Are they really? What more is there to say about a social worker apart from "A social worker is somebody who does social work"? I don't see any reason not to treat everything in one article. (The article was at social worker originally, by the way, but was moved, rightly in my opinion.) --Camembert

As I social worker I was both shocked and insulted by what I read as the "typical social worker" roles. I work in a hospital with patients who are dying with cancer. I see each client for one hour once a week like a typical psychologist would do and I diagnose them using the DSM-IV-TR. I use a spectrum of psychological theories and have had years of training in both diagnosing and treating mental disorders. Because I work in a hospital I can also request that a patient be given medication to help treat their condition. I feel both humbled and honored to be able to help ease their suffering in their final months. I can say with confidence that none of my clients would agree with the statements made in this article regarding the role of social workers or the service (or lack thereof) that they provide. The article on social workers is based on the typical social worker role from about 100 years ago. Once liscenced, there is almost nothing that a social worker cannot and does not do that a psychologist can do.

Still very American in outlook. I will shortly be starting a social work training programme in the UK and will certainly be adding to this article.

Minority of Social Worker make a bad name for others
Yes some social workers are very bad... some are at the centre of scandels... Social Work is an extreamely diverse profession and it is important that is reflected. I'm going to print this off and pass it around and I will likely be adding some more information to the entry using input of local Social Worker professionals, students and educators. Very important that negative experiences with some social workers do not taint them for the rest.

Addition Requests
think we should take a look at the physician page There is a section on training and regulation that we should add and move things into. I also messed around and tried to organize the activities of SW section... feel free to modify as neccessary - but I think we need some sort of organization. Graniterock 07:35, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

North American Bias
If anybody has knowledge of Social Work from an International Context please add away. I know there is great diversity in the profession yet this article is very Clinically focused and ignores much of the community development / activist orientations that exist in many places around the title. I had a friend once tell me not to ID myself as a Social Worker in certain countries as they think of you as a troublesome activist (although not all activists are troublesome IMHO)


 * I have made a few structural changes to the article and removed a bit of repetition, but feel that this is only really a start in sorting the page out. I hope to do more work soon as I'm aware that it's not really satisfactory as it is, but we're on our way! Peeper 16:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi...not sure if I'm doing this right as I'm brand new to Wikipedia, but I totally agree with this - the article is very North American in its focus. I made a few edits yesterday to broaden it out a bit. (Hope these were ok...friendly guidance appreciated while I'm a newbie.) Most of this article doesn't really reflect British Social Work at all. It was difficult but not impossible to amend the introduction to be less US-specific, but I think the answer will be to extend the use of '...in the UK' and '...in the US' sections (and other countries as users add them. Peeper 12:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What you did seems good to me. Generally Expansion (or adding details) is good if the additions are accurate, if you delete or remove anything major it's best to ask permission first and wait until you get some sort of response.  When I got here there was a ton of really nitty gritty speciffic case law listed about negative Children's Aid type cases that required court intervention by somebody who had a grudge.  Which really isn't relevant to a encyclipedia unless that case caused wide reforms to the profession.  The ariticle over all needs more expansion in specific areas and probably some reorganization.  I'll do it someday maybe when I have the time.  But if you have the time in interest do what you think  is best.  If the article gets really big, we might wnat to consider making individual pages for different localities (ie US, Canada, UK and other countries as information is made availible)  Welcome aboard.  Granite T. Rock 02:21, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Deletions
Debating if entire Examples of Documented Abuses should be removed. If you look at other professions webpages ie. physician, they do not have such sections and we all know there are abuses in all professions. The goal is not to document extreame behaviour but typical. If need be, perhaps a second wiki entry should be created for the topic of Social Work Abuses. Unless we're talking international news which will be remembered for years it's not relevant for the audience of Wikipedia. However maybe we should go in baby steps. I propose that the following paragraphs either be deleted or shrunk into a few sentences because they effectively cancel each other out:

Also, there have been several scandals involving false testimony about alleged child sexual abuse. In these cases, often referred to as modern witchhunts, it is generally acknowledged that some social workers, not sufficiently trained and often overzealous, created false memories through suggestive questioning. Internationally, many courts are now rejecting this type of testimony.

It seems that many of the people that are associated with this type of behavior are not professional social workers at all, but mearly government or agency employees who have the job title of social worker. Professional social work, in the United States, requires a degree from an CSWE accredited social work program. In many states, workers are regularly hired without a degree in social work. It is hard to hold a profession accountable for people who are not really members of the profession.

Please reply in favour or against - if time passes and I hear nothing I will proceed. Graniterock 07:35, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am in favor, the section could easily be shrunk or moved. Thanks!  --Vorpalbla 3/6/05


 * Thanks for the feedback I had already deleted an documented abuses section - I agree the critisms could definately be shrunk. If someone else doesn't do it... I'll get around to it when I have some time to draft something.  Graniterock 04:27, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

I was looking for information on social work and that section seemed jump out. It doesn't really seem to be very NPOV to me. 205.211.52.30 15:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am new to wiki as well. However, I have noticed that there is no reference made to social care workers. In the UK there has been an expansion of social care workers (usually known as support workers) who are meant to compliment the services provided by social workers and other health professionals. It would be nice to see a distinct article for social care workers, perhaps linking to care in the community, social work, etc. SH

GraniteRock and others....go ahead and delete....in another area of wiki the area of unreliable and unethical "professionals" can be addressed. We need to be very careful with any mention of abuse. For example, the Duluth Model is very questionable and is very heavily anti-male in tone. It is a fact that far more children die at the hand of female caretakers--but I'm surely not going to enter that in wiki.Homebuilding 20:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)9 9 06

The sentence "Social workers work with individuals, families, groups, organizations and communities, as members of a profession which is committed, theoretically at least, to social justice and human rights" (my bold) I don't think should have the "theoretically at least" comment in there. I don't think the wikipedia page on Doctor would state "a profession which is committed, theoretically at least, to saving lives", so why should this. I did remove this, but it's gone back, so I guess other people have differing POV on the matter. With the discussion above taken into account I understand why this may want to feature, but is the first paragraph the correct place? There aren't similar expressions in that place for Physician, Vicar, or Policeman. Chris Bradshaw 10:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I see this has been put in again by an anonymous user, this time with a "reference" of (Reichert, 2003). Anyone know if this is a paper/publication (that can be referenced properly), or just "some bloke down the pub in 2003"? Chris Bradshaw 08:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Other Dicussions / Questions / Requests
I've been moving country specific information into their own categories. I feel this is important due to the diverse nature of international Social Work. I think the long term goal of these sections as they expand is to make country specific pages. --Graniterock 04:24, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

POV
Calling a fact POV has become a great way to get rid of it. For example creationists time and again call evolution 'a theory' meaning exactly that evolution is POV. I've seen this madness in many Wikipedia pages, and seen how in the space of a few months Wikipedia has decayed from balanced and factual to biased and dogmatic. By using this slick specious POV pseudoargument you are destroying Wikipedia. Please stop already.

absolutely!! homebuilding

"The attitudes of social workers can range from solidarity with oppressed service users to outright contempt for the "undeserving poor" and everything in between" The above sentence is POV heavy so I am marking the article as not having a neutral point of view.

Is social work a health science?
I would like to canvas opinion on whether social work should be added to category:health sciences along with health professions such as nursing, medicine, occupational therapy etc. --Vincej 09:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's actually considered more of a social science, esp if you go by what dept SW is usually found in North America universities. However, I would have no objection including Social Workers in health sciences category as social workers do work along side of nurses, doctors and occupational therapists.  Alot of social work jobs do occur in health science settings (ie hospitals). Up here in Canada its all the rage to call Social Work the helping profession, although nurses and etc. would also likely fall under that category as well.  I see no reason why not to include SW in all 3 categories. :) Granite T. Rock 00:24, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I have moved this article from category:applied sciences to category:health sciences. I am aware that this could be seen as controversial. Nevertheless, I believe social workers improve people's health (by my definition of the term) and I think that people looking at the list of health professions in the health sciences category whould expect to see it there. I'm keen to hear people's thoughts on this. --Vince 09:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, in the United Kingdom at least Social Work is explicitly not a health science, although by its interdisciplinary nature it does relate to the health sciences. But to call it a health science in itself is misleading and far too narrowing given what social workers do. Social work intervention may improve people's health in a very broad sense, but this is not the accepted set of definitions used in the sector in Britain currently. Neither label is quite satisfactory so I think it should be in both if possible. I think Granite T. Rock has it about right. The spectre of different academic emphases in different countries raises its head - I'm never quite sure how far they can all be reconciled in a single article. But that's a whole other debate! Peeper 10:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In the US it is a health science. The degree, MSW, is considered a professional degree like the DDS, or MD and not an academic degree like an MA or MS or Ph.D. SamDavidson 18:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I'm increasingly coming to the view that this page should be separated out into "Social Work in the (country)". Are there any comparable professional or other pages divided in this way? Given the nebulous nature of social work it could be unique in this way. Peeper 15:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No need. Social Work is not a health profession per se.  Both Social Work and clinical health fall under a larger category of "human services."  Of course there are hospital social workers and psychiatric social workers, and clinical social workers practice psychotherapy, but these are specialties within social work. Social workers are found in many other types of human service organizations, including legal, political and governmental.  Although MSW is considered a professional degree, so are law and architecture, as well as medicine and dentistry.  Like them, social work is an applied field.Vendrov 10:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Knowledge building in social work
I made some additions to this section, but it is still very incomplete. The history should be fleshed out. Particularly needed are discussions on the establishment of social work schools and the tensions that arose from that decision, and on studies of casework effectiveness, carried out in the 1940's and 1950's e.g. the Chemung county study. Joel Fisher's role should also be explored. There also needs to be a discussion of the scope and content of social work knowledge-building today. The discussion in the Encyclopedia of Social Work article is now very out of date. I said a little about direct practitioners and knowledge building, but much more could be said. Likewise, knowledge building in the social welfare policy field is usually left out of the discussion, but it is clearly part of the picture.161.185.1.100 22:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)HIinNY


 * I tried to summarize this section and then created a sub-article with your full text. This feels like the best way to organize the article.  It was getting a little long and unwieldy.  Ursasapien (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The History Section Needs Work
I could get my textbooks out and make a start of it. Sadly, I believe they are fairly U.S.-centric. The history section is simply a few bullets now. I am proud of my profession and would like this article to be greatly improved, perhaps to FA status. Ursasapien 10:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have started work on the Origins section. I hope to eventually expand it to the point that I can create a sub-article.  Ursasapien (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

New Project Page?
I have been considering whether I should create a new Category/Project page. I am not sure that social work truly falls in the Sociology realm. Even if it remains in that category, I think it should have its own subcategory and project page. I think having a project page would help us decide, among other things, if we wanted to split the article into country specific articles or if we wanted to continue with the current structure. Ursasapien (talk) 06:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Social Work is not a Sociology sub-domain. Social Work is a profession and a the degree is a professional degree.  In terms of categories, it falls under Mental Health.  I would recommend a separate category much as Psychology has one.  SamDavidson 19:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and started a new project page and a new category. Please look at this new project page, sign up to work on this Wikiproject, add task to the task list, and help me organize and increase information on this noble profession and field of study.  Thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes by User:67.174.12.60
Your edit appears to be opinion and original research. However, I noted that you said it was based on objective research, so if you have external sources, please add your information back with the appropriate citations. Ursasapien (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am glad you deleted that material. It reads more like an OpEd article. SamDavidson 15:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Qualifications
I took the liberty of copying your question to the talk page. Perhaps someone can answer it here. Ursasapien (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

But what are the qualifications? What prerequisites do you need? What is the type, length and cost of the program? Why has noone posted that yet? 12:50, September 12, 2007 User:204.239.110.250 talk


 * The qualifications, prerequisites, length and cost of program vary greatly from country to country and even state/province to state/province. If you follow the link to Qualifications for professional social work you will find a more detailed listing of what different countries require.  Ursasapien (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent Change to Lead
Prakash m philip wrote: SOCIAL WORK is a helping profession. In brief it is " helping others to help themselves" Although this information could be expanded and used in the article, I do not think it belongs in the lead as it does not really summarize anything in the article. Secondly, I think the profession of social work has grown into more than "helping others to help themselves." The profession now includes advocacy and public policy work. Ursasapien (talk) 10:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits by Dr. Ron
I reverted many of your edits, as I fear it is getting us back to being more US-centric. I would be happy to work with you to add the information, but in a more neutral way. Ursasapien (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Social Care
I looked for an article on Social Care and the article re-directs here. Before I re-start the old article and remove the redirect I'd like to explain a few things to see what the term for this is other countries other than my native Britain.

Social Care is the type of care given to a person who is unable to care for themselves in whole or in part. They may not be medivally ill, but they have difficulties (physical or psychological) that make totally independent living impossible. Social care at one extreme could mean the person in a housed in a special facility with others (such as residences for the elderly or the severly disabled). At the other extremene it may mean a person who can lead a mostly independent life but needs special help at certain times (such as with dressing and undressing) or with cooking and/or eating meals.

There are a mix of providers and finance arrangements for social care in the UK. In England for example, people have to pay or social care and the government only helps once savings below a certain level and a home may have to be sold to meet the cost. In Scotland, the full cost of such care is met by government.

I'd like to see an article describing social care and the arrangements for the care of such people. Personally I think this is small aspect of social work. In the UK social workers (emplyees of goverment agencies charged with care for the disadvantaged) would be involved in making assessments for such people and obtaining placements (or working woth families to do so) but would not be involved day-to-day.

My question for editors here are these.


 * Has this topic been raised here before?
 * Should it be a subsection of this article or in its own article?
 * By what name is this type of care known by in your country? (If non-English speaking give the name in your own language and its direct translation into English)
 * briefly what arrangements happen in your country/state/region .. provision / finance / agencies etc?

Many thanks--Tom (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In the U.S., I can not think of a singular term for this type of care. Different disciplines call this service by different names.  There is home health care, case management, occupational therapy, and other terms.  I do not see this as a subsection of this article, although you may want to put the service in the "Types of professional social work intervention" or the "Fields of professional social work practice" section.  I would definitely approve of you creating an article and removing the redirect, but you will want reliable sources that verify this definition of the term.  Ursasapien (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well the term social care is well established in the UK. The Department of Health there has a main directorate of Social Care http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Policyandguidance/SocialCare/index.htm. Essentially, it covers virtually everything that is not under the umbrella of health. The payment for care is contoversial because if you are say 85 years old and ill with a disease which requires you to receive 24 hour nursing care but not in a hospital setting, your nursing home fees are paid by the government because health care anywhere in the UK is free. But if you are 85 years old but need lesser care (say a room in a rest home where all your meals cooked for you and your laundry done for you) you have to pay for that care yourself until your savings fall to a level before the government helps out. The contrasting rules do not so much affect the care a person receives, but it does affect those waiting to inherit the pot when the person dies. In Scotland, by exception, social care is now free of charge as a public service to its users so there this dichotomy does not arise.


 * Perhaps the article should focus on the approaches taken in different countries. In the UK there is a constant issue that health care is the responsibility of the NHS whilst social care is the responsibilty of local government so co-ordination is vital. It used to happen (though it should not) that a hospital cannot discharge a recovered patient because local government has no place for them to go to. So called "bed blocking" becuase it blocks a hospital bed for another patient and keeps costs in the NHS that should be on the community. In Finland this does not happen because the hospital is part of the same community organisation as the personal care group and hospital bed occupancy is more expensive. I am still interested in the views of other editors so please feel free to add comments. --Tom (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It sounds like the closest equivalent we have in the U.S. is a nursing home. We also experience issues regarding "who's going to pay" and require that an individual exhaust almost all of their own resources first.  This causes the same issues here with the depletion of inheritance.  Thank you for taking this on.  Ursasapien (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the current article fails to provide a definition of social care to cover the re-direct and that we should create/re-instate a social care page. The definition we use at the Social Care Institute for Excellence is as follows:

Social care is defined as the provision of social work, personal care (but not nursing or medical care), protection or social support services to children in need or at risk and their families and carers, or adults at risk or with needs arising from illness, disability, old age or poverty and their families or other carers. That provision may have one or more of the following aims: to protect service users, to preserve or advance physical or mental health, to promote independence and social inclusion, to improve opportunities and life chances, to strengthen families and to protect human rights in relation to people's social needs.

--Robh21 (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Then what we need are some reliable sources and someone needs to boldly rewrite the article. Perhaps someone can start in their userspace and move it to mainspace when the article begins to take shape.  Perhaps this would be a good place to start.  Ursasapien (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)