Social work has been informed by several different disciplines, and sociology has been one of them, though it has been less influential compared to psychological and biomedical models (Payne, 2015). However, more practical research has been conducted in this area than in clinical sociology and psychosocial studies.
In a foundational textbook on social work titled Modern Theories in Social Work by Malcolm Payne, the debate within social work is first framed by the distinction between individualistic and therapeutic interventions, in contrast to collectivist and political interventions (Payne, 2015). Those operating at the societal level are referred to as macro, practice, social mobilization, and social pedagogy. These three are similar in their focus on the social and on development, in contrast to individual, therapeutic approaches. Macro, practice is the American term sometimes used instead of the more common term “community work” (Payne, 2015, 212). Social pedagogy is a European practice. Community social work is primarily a British practice. Social entrepreneurship can be viewed as a macro, practice. Activation, mobilization, capacity building, social capital, and social inclusion are important goals (Payne, 2015, 213). The literature in this area tends toward pure policy and also incorporates economic research. One problem with this field is the tension between long, term change and the need for rapid change for clients. One theory within this part of the field is social development theory (Midgley & Conley, 2010, in Payne, 2015, 216). Midgley identifies different strategies: individualistic, collectivist, and populist (1993, in Payne, 2015, 227). Social pedagogy is more focused on education and personal development as the path to change. Humanistic, existentialist, and spiritual practices also have political dimensions that are sometimes incorporated into social work practice (Payne, 2015, 356).
Critical social work has grown since the 1990s (Payne, 2019, 405). The focus of this approach is on “raising awareness” (Freire, 2000) of injustices and combating a certain cultural hegemony (Payne, 2015, 406). The goal is that “critical analysis” will enable or lead to “critical action.” A common criticism of critical theory is that it is too difficult to bring about general social change, and that it is more important to address the needs and emergencies facing the client (Payne, 2015, 407). Proponents argue, however, that this is the best way to bring about change, because it is through collective action and thinking, for example, in action groups, that real change can occur, capable of breaking a central hegemonic discourse: the therapeutic and psychiatric discourse that reinforces and underpins neoliberal, apolitical subjectification. Frieres’ theory and practice are recurring themes here.
There are others who argue that one needs to be more eclectic, blending Marxist, feminist, anti, oppressive, social disability models, postmodernism, critical theory (the Frankfurt School), and empowerment, oriented ideas (Payne, 2015, 407). They often problematize liberal human rights frameworks, which are not as applicable in countries where such frameworks are not as comprehensively established (Payne, 2015, 410). Advocates of critical social work argue that it requires extensive self, reflection and practices that ensure one does not reinforce effects present in society as part of the state (Payne, 2015, 409). However, this can simultaneously conflict with the scope of action available to social workers, which may be severely limited.
One criticism of the field is a lack of empirical studies (Payne, 2015, 410). Recommendations stem from deductions rather than being grounded in empirical evidence, and, like sociology in general, the field is not particularly practice, oriented (Payne, 2015, 411). Criticism has also been directed at an overemphasis on cognitive and material factors at the expense of emotional and immaterial factors (Payne, 2015, 412). Critical theory and, more broadly, sociology’s critique of psychology fail to recognize that there are sound practices that are more therapeutic than merely political, which establish a connection between raising awareness and taking action (Payne, 2015, 412). Another criticism is that it does not offer a clear positive alternative but can become negative and therefore demotivating (Payne, 2015, 413). A challenge also arises when different groups and their group interests are pitted against one another, and it can be difficult to form alliances (Payne, 2015, 413). A major criticism of the critical n social work is that other traditions are rooted in individual psychology, placing blame on the victim and holding the victim accountable; they also privatize people by treating problems confidentially, which isolates clients and makes it difficult to address the problems collectively, and reinforces and perpetuates the oppressive order that they argue exists in capitalist societies (Payne, 2015, 418).
Various methods that can be classified as “radical practices” (de Maria, 1992) include: sensitivity to social causes; adaptation to oppressive social situations; prioritizing humanity over political partisanship; narrative explanations; and a constant focus on social injustices and on the practices and discourses that are marginalized (Payne, 2015, 422). Mullaly argues that social workers need the ability to conduct a critical analysis so that their work does not merely consist of trying to adapt to the prevailing regime. Mullaly’s fundamental analysis is socialist in nature and draws on dialectical Marxist theory (Payne, 2015, 425). Mullaly highlights that there are various myths in society that hinder change, and that if social workers and their clients operate under these myths: scarcity of resources and jobs is accepted as fact; certain groups’ perspectives are considered more truthful; stereotyping; blaming or holding the individual or victim responsible; competition and ambition are natural phenomena; Western education and knowledge are superior; and most people belong to the middle class (Payne, 2015, 428). Various forms of oppression include: exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence. Mullaly, however, employs several different practices and actions across various domains: intrapsychic work, empowerment, raising awareness, normalization, collectivism, redefinition, and dialogic relationships (Payne, 2015, 433). Social workers and others can also work with alternative services, engage clients in social movements, encourage participation in labor unions and professional organizations, and develop discourses that are critical of the prevailing social order. Provide guidance on psychological consequences, foster critical reflection on the social order, initiate collaborative problem, solving, build self, confidence, use collaborative learning and critical questioning, encourage structural empathy, normalize situations by informing clients that others face similar challenges and connecting them, form groups based on these challenges or utilize existing groups, redefine the situation through questions, humor, metaphors, images, and persuasion; and involve the client in decisions that affect them, and ask for the client’s feedback. Mullaly calls this structural social work practice (Payne, 2015, 437).
Fooks’s (2012, in Payne, 2015) more postmodern critique of modernist ideas about knowledge and the concept of ideology argues instead that one should assume that differences are inevitable, and that it follows that there are different forms of knowledge. Fooks’, argues that the concept of ideology is not particularly useful in critical social work because it forces analysis into categories of true and false (false consciousness), and this lack of pluralism instead creates contradictions (Payne, 2015, 435). Fooks’ ideas are very closely aligned with narrative psychotherapy; deconstruction, challenge, reconstruction, the client’s perspective and history, uncovering the narrative, externalizing the history of the problem, creating an audience, questioning dichotomies and dilemmas, resisting dominant cultural contexts, and advocacy (Fook, 2012, in Payne, 2015, 436).
Even though social work is, at its core, sociological, psychology is the field that dominates social work. There are several reasons why psychology is the most widely used field within social work. The psychologization of social work stems from the fact that psychology has developed concepts and measurement methods to assess and change behavior, something sociology has not even attempted to develop (Wan & Wan, 2020). One way to observe psychology’s dominance is that it has the highest impact factor in the fields of social work and child development. However, there are several journals that incorporate a great deal of sociology, such as Social Policy and Administration. Sociology is usually at an abstract level, especially in macrosociology, which is what social workers are taught, but what is actually used in practice are more practical micro, techniques to bring about change for the client (Wan & Wan, 2020).
Social work as a distinct discipline has also evolved from being viewed as primarily practical, with no strong ties to universities, to becoming a discipline in its own right today; for example, it has recently gone its separate way from the Department of Sociology at Uppsala University. Cunningham and Cunningham (2008) explore how sociological consciousness (Berger, 1963) and imagination (Mills, 1959) can be applied in various ways to foster a sociological understanding in social work. This is similar to how sociology is used in the handbook Critical Social Work (ed. Webb, 2019), where sociology is used primarily to foster greater sociological consciousness and imagination in the social worker, but not in the client. An important exception is a chapter on Bourdieu, in which the social worker is expected to support clients in various ways by providing insight into how different fields and forms of capital affect the individual and by attempting to change “fatalistic” ideas stemming from stigmatization and self, pathologizing beliefs (Webb, 2019, 110). Using capital and field analysis, the social worker attempts to identify alliances and paths forward. This is a process of “conscientization,” a concept also used by Freire. The social worker supports the individual in analyzing their own life through Bourdieu’s framework. Another approach is to strategically utilize various forms of capital: where is it easiest to bring about change, and which forms of capital can be leveraged in that context? Furthermore, the social worker can seek to increase “emotional capital,” a form of capital that is new but falls within the Bourdieuian perspective. One can also support the individual in creating symbolic capital with a greater focus on discourses of citizenship and rights (Webb, 2019, 111). Another chapter in the same book discusses how critical race theory can be used when engaging with racialized groups, during interviews, in listening to and giving voice to marginalized voices, and in analyzing wounds that are not readily visible within a prevailing color, blind discourse (Webb, 2019, 167). Another chapter focuses on mimetic theory and group work models (Webb, 2019, 328). It is in encounters with people who have shared the same experiences that one’s “private ills” become clear as “public issues” (Webb, 2019, 328).
Feminist practice has a CBT branch, but also has a more sociologically grounded branch (Payne, 2015, 441). Within this approach, there is a discussion about which form of feminism is most suitable for social work and has a significant impact on how the work is conducted, for example, liberal and radical feminism. Anti, oppressive practice incorporates critical race theory, intersectionality, multiculturalism, sensitivity training, cultural competence, and pluralism (Payne, 2015, 474). Siseneros et al. (2008) propose an intersectional model in which privilege, power, access, and resources are linked to intersections/overlapping identities of ethnicity/race, sexual orientation, spirituality/religion, gender, class, national origin, and ability (Payne, 2015, 499). Concepts such as “identity strength” are central to bringing about change and gaining access to resources, power, and opportunities.
The 2004 book Handbook of Social Work with Groups (Garvin, Gutiérrez, Galinsky, 2004) provides an overview of the wide range of methods used in group therapy. A review of these reveals that some can be clearly linked to sociology: the mutual aid model, support and self, help groups, and social action groups (Garvin, Gutiérrez, Galinsky, 2004).
In summary, “critical” or sociologically informed social work is the approach that has best utilized sociology in actual encounters with clients. What is lacking is a systematization of diagnoses/conditions and exercises. Furthermore, it is problematic that the field has become heavily fixated on Marxist and poststructuralist perspectives, which overlook a significant portion of sociology.