Historical Divides And Ethical Obligations Within Social Workjane Adda ✓ Solved

Historical Divides and Ethical Obligations Within Social Work Jane Addams was a firm advocate for macro change that would influence society at all levels while Mary Richmond pushed for a bottom–up concept for changing the person, then the environment (Thompson, Spano & Koenig, 2019). As a social worker we know the field has its own basis root in a philosophical difference. These organizers of the social work field needed to positively influence individuals in both the present moment through individual assistance and in the long-term with policy changes to support a great many people. Inside the field of social work today these equivalent divisions obstruct the progression of the social equity plan, as spread out by the NASW Code of Ethics (2017).

The inaccurate belief by different experts that social work is not a science or is inadequate can slow or stop any measure toward the formation of policies or programs that move bigger standards ahead (Hill, Ferguson & Erickson, 2010) while the trust by some social worker that social work ought to consistently concentrate on changing arrangement and progressing in the direction of full scale level effect gives the feeling that social work may quit being centered essentially around the person. The absence of instruction which would permit social workers to move in the full scale field of network based or significantly bigger projects have begun to be tended to yet at the same time leaves social worker caught off guard for the greatness of attempting to make or change a strategy or program at the nearby, state or government level (Jacobson, 2001).

Social work programs have begun to address issues and the specialization of some social workers in the macro level of large scale social work help as a result of these experts and are valuable and useful assets for any social worker working just at the smaller scale level. Social worker should be effective at all levels of social work and on the chance that there is a requirement for experts, at that point they should be used to their fullest. The issue of divisions inside the social work field with respect to social justice and the ability and need of each social worker to be pushing toward social justice as an essential generally speaking objective can restrain the progression of social work all in legitimize what social work does.

Proceeding to teach social worker on the best way to be valuable not just at the micro level, which is basic to what we do as social worker yet consistently to have an eye towards affecting the bigger picture will help address any issues and make a social work field that can influence not just an individual and their quick social disagreement yet can after some time influence the more social environment but can over time also affect the greater community in general. References Hill, K. M., Ferguson, S. M., & Erickson, C. (2010). Sustaining and strengthening a macro identity: The association of macro practice social work.

Journal of Community Practice, 18 (4), 513–527 Jacobson, W. B. (2001). Beyond therapy: Bringing social work back to human services reform. Social Work, 46 (1), 51–61 The NASW Code of Ethics (2017). Document retrieved from Thompson, J., Spano, R., & Koenig, T. (2019).

Back to Addams and Richmond: was social work really a divided house in the beginning? J. Soc. & Soc. Welfare 3, (2019).

Paper for above instructions

Historical Divides and Ethical Obligations Within Social Work

Jane Addams and Mary Richmond epitomized two distinct philosophies within the field of social work, highlighting the historical divides that still impact social practice today. While Addams championed macro-level change aimed at societal transformation, Richmond concentrated on micro-level interventions focused on individual well-being. These contrasting approaches epitomize a philosophical dichotomy that permeates contemporary social work, resulting in ongoing debates about the field's identity and purpose (Thompson, Spano & Koenig, 2019).
The foundation of social work lies in its dual commitment: addressing individual needs while advocating for structural changes that foster social justice. This commitment, as outlined in the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics (2017), emphasizes the responsibility of social workers to enhance the well-being of individuals and communities simultaneously. However, achieving this balance is complicated by the ideologies of practitioners within the field, leading to divisions that can hinder the progression of social justice initiatives.

Historical Context

From its emergence, social work has grappled with the challenge of bridging individual interventions with macro-level systemic reforms. Jane Addams, often regarded as the mother of social work, focused on community action and the elimination of structural barriers to ensure equity and justice. Through her work at Hull House, she demonstrated the impact of collective action on social change. She believed in creating environments that support individuals rather than simply providing direct services to them (Addams, 1910).
Conversely, Mary Richmond’s approach was rooted in a belief in the importance of understanding the individual within their environmental context. She advocated for casework methods that specifically addressed the needs of individuals diagnosed with social problems, thus contributing to the development of social casework as a profession (Richmond, 1917). This emphasis on therapeutic approaches led to a perception that social work can sometimes become overly focused on individualism rather than collective action, perpetuating the divide between micro and macro practice.

Current Implications in Social Work

Today, the schism between micro and macro social work persists, often affecting how practitioners understand their roles in relation to social justice. The tendency of some social workers to concentrate on individual cases can lead to a neglect of broader systemic issues that require attention. This micro-focused practice may stem from a lack of training or resources that adequately prepare social workers to address macro-level challenges (Jacobson, 2001).
Research shows that misconceptions about social work can hinder the profession’s credibility and its effectiveness in pushing for policy changes (Hill, Ferguson & Erickson, 2010). For example, while social work is a science grounded in rigorous methodologies and research, some professionals and stakeholders still perceive it as a non-scientific field. This perception can undermine efforts to advocate for evidence-based policy reforms, potentially stalling initiatives that aim for systematic changes needed to address social injustice.

The Role of Education in Addressing Divides

Education plays a critical role in addressing the historical divides in social work. Social work programs increasingly recognize the necessity for a curriculum that merges both micro and macro-level training, preparing future social workers to operate effectively in varying contexts. Schools of social work are also beginning to emphasize the importance of policy practice and advocacy as integral components of professional education (National Association of Social Workers, 2017).
The NASW Code of Ethics provides guidance for social workers striving to navigate these complexities, affirming that social justice is a core element of social work’s mission. By urging practitioners to engage in advocacy, the ethical standards encourage a shift from focusing solely on individual client needs to addressing wider systemic issues that impede social justice (NASW, 2017).

Bridging the Divide for Social Justice

To truly embody social work’s holistic approach, practitioners should endeavor to integrate their micro and macro practices. This synthesis allows social workers to see the interconnections between individual experiences and larger societal structures. For instance, addressing client needs related to housing instability may involve both direct intervention and advocacy for policy reforms aimed at affordable housing.
Moreover, it is essential for social workers to build competencies that allow them to influence policy change effectively. Engaging in community organizing, participating in lobbying efforts, and collaborating with advocates can help social workers push for systemic changes that address the root causes of social problems (Kent, 2018). This dual engagement—providing immediate support while working toward institutional reform—aligns with the missions of both Addams and Richmond.

Conclusion

Historical divides within social work continue to shape the profession’s identity and practice. The contrast between Jane Addams's macro-level approach and Mary Richmond's micro-level perspective illustrates an ongoing dialogue about the importance of both individual and systemic interventions in fostering social justice. By striving to incorporate both methodologies and addressing the historical rift, social workers can fulfill their ethical obligations to advocate for individuals and communities while simultaneously addressing the broader sociopolitical landscape.
To advance the field, social work education must equip future practitioners with the skills and perspectives necessary to understand and navigate both micro and macro challenges. In doing so, social workers can contribute to a more equitable society that recognizes and acts upon the interplay between individual experiences and structural injustices.

References

Addams, J. (1910). Twenty Years at Hull House. New York: Macmillan.
Hill, K. M., Ferguson, S. M., & Erickson, C. (2010). Sustaining and strengthening a macro identity: The association of macro practice social work. Journal of Community Practice, 18(4), 513–527.
Jacobson, W. B. (2001). Beyond therapy: Bringing social work back to human services reform. Social Work, 46(1), 51–61.
Kent, J. (2018). Engaging in advocacy: A vital role for social workers. Social Work Today, 18(2), 14-15.
National Association of Social Workers. (2017). NASW Code of Ethics. Retrieved from [website link].
Richmond, M. (1917). Social Diagnosis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Thompson, J., Spano, R., & Koenig, T. (2019). Back to Addams and Richmond: was social work really a divided house in the beginning? Journal of Social Welfare & Social Work, 3.