O R I G I N A L P A P E R
Integrating Social Work Perspectives and Models with Concepts,
Methods and Skills with Other Professions’ Specialized
Approaches
Alex Gitterman • Nina Rovinelli Heller
Published online: 8 April 2011
� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Abstract In this article, the authors encourage social
work practitioners to identify with and adopt distinctive
social work perspectives and practice models rather than
solely embrace models or approaches developed by and for
other professions. We do so because these perspectives are
most responsive to our professions’ mission of social jus-
tice and social purpose of paying equal attention to people
and their environments. For heuristic purposes, we present
and illustrate the ecological perspective and life modeled
approach. Since no social work model or approach can take
into account every type of life stressor, event and condi-
tion, we demonstrate how we can borrow and integrate
specialized concepts, methods and techniques from other
profession’s approaches. The authors identify five charac-
teristics which borrowed content should meet in order to
integrate well with social work models. Accordingly,
concepts, methods and skills from a few approaches have
particular relevance for social work direct practice: Cog-
nitive-Behavioral Therapy; Motivational Interviewing;
Narrative Therapy and Solution-Focused Practice. More-
over, the authors present and illustrate the process of bor-
rowing and integrating concepts, methods and skills from
other professions to deepen social work practice.
Keywords Ecological perspective � Life model �
Cognitive behavioral � Motivational interviewing �
Narrative therapy � Solution-focused
Social work practitioners work in numerous practice set-
tings, including primary social work and host settings.
Increasingly, social workers in both settings offer services to
voluntary as well as mandated clients whose presenting
problems are influenced by an array of personal, interper-
sonal and pernicious environmental demands and influ-
ences. Decreasingly do social workers, particularly those in
agency based practice, provide services to clients who are
voluntarily seeking services. In these, particularly interdis-
ciplinary settings, professional roles and functions are
sometimes blurred, and social workers are faced with the
opportunities and challenges inherent in having a wide
variety of approaches and models, and methods from which
to choose appropriate interventions for and with their clients.
In this article, the authors encourage social work practitio-
ners to identify with and adopt distinctive social work per-
spectives and practice models or approaches rather than
solely embrace models or approaches developed by and for
other professions. We make this appeal primarily because
we believe that social work theoretical perspectives and
models and approaches are most responsive to the profes-
sion’s mission of social justice and social purpose of paying
equal attention to people and their environments.
The social work practitioner has essentially two over-
arching theoretical perspectives to guide their practice,
ecological (Gitterman 2008) and eco-systems (Meyer 1983).
Four major distinctive social work models or approaches
developed by social workers for the practice of social work
conceptualize and illustrate the breadth of methods and
skills grounded in the profession’s ethics and value contexts.
The major social work models and approaches developed
specifically for social work include: (1) The Life Model of
Social Work Practice (Gitterman and Germain 2008); (2)
Direct social work practice: Theory and skills (Hepworth
et al. 2009); (3) The Skills of Helping Individual, Families,
A. Gitterman � N. R. Heller (&)
University of Connecticut School of Social Work,
1798 Asylum Avenue, West Hartford, CT 06117, USA
e-mail: Nina.rovinelli.heller@uconn.edu
A. Gitterman
e-mail: Alex.gitterman@uconn.edu
123
Clin Soc Work J (2011) 39:204–211
DOI 10.1007/s10615-011-0340-7
Groups and Communities (Shulman 2009); check paren-
theses and Casework: A Psychosocial Therapy (Woods and
Hollis 2000). Since no social work model or approach can
take into account every type of life stressor, event and
condition, social, workers should borrow and integrate
specialized concepts, methods and techniques from other
profession’s approaches. Concepts, methods and skills from
a few approaches have particular relevance for social work
direct practice: Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy; Motiva-
tional Interviewing; Narrative Therapy and Solution-
Focused Practice. For heuristic value, we will discuss the
relevance for social work practice of a few concepts from the
ecological perspective and Life Model. This theoretical
perspective and practice model are simply selected because
of one of the author’s role in their development. We make no
claim of superiority of this perspective and model over the
others. Moreover, we will present and illustrate the process
of borrowing and integrating concepts, methods and skills
from other professions to deepen social work practice,
while, at the same time maintaining identification with
fundamental social work purpose.
Methods and skills ‘‘borrowed’’ from other profession’s
approaches hold the most utility for social work practice
when they share several characteristics. First, they are
compatible with the social work values of self-determination
and respect. Second, they are embedded in a client worker
relationship model, which promotes mutuality at all phases
of the helping process. Third, these skills and concepts are
consistent with strengths and resiliency perspectives.
Fourth, they are responsive to a wide range of sociocultural
influences and circumstances. Finally, they ‘‘deepen’’ and
extend fundamental social work methods and skills.
Ecological Perspective
Ecological theory, a schema of interrelated concepts, pro-
vides the basis for the ecological perspective and, thereby,
the social work practitioners a distinctive frame of reference
to organize, focus, and classify data for assessment and
interventions. Ecological theory with its emphasis on the
interdependence of organism and environment fits particu-
larly well with social work’s historic commitment to people
and their environments. From an ecological perspective
view, people (their biological, cognitive, emotional, and
social processes) and environments (their physical and social
components) can be only fully understood in the context of
the relationship between and among them. We present two
specific concepts from the ecological perspective: ecological
thinking and level of fit. In developing ecological thinking,
the social work clinician is asked to question cause and effect
linear thinking that pervades behavioral and medical
approaches to social work practice. The emphasis of
ecological thinking is much more on the consequences of
dysfunctional transactions and much less on behavioral
causality. For example, parents may have difficulty dealing
with an adolescent’s struggle for separation and autonomy.
Their exchanges become characterized by escalating argu-
ments and power struggles. The ecologically perspective
trained social worker sees neither the parents nor the ado-
lescent as ‘‘causing’’ the problem. Rather, the focus is on
assessing and intervening in the dysfunctional transactions
and their negative consequences. Ecological thinking views
the adolescent and the parents as being involved in reciprocal
exchanges rather than linear or unidirectional ones. The
adolescent may act in ways that lead to change in the parents’
actions, whereupon that change in the parents’ actions and
attitudes leads to change in the adolescent’s behaviors, which
in turn affects the parents’ behaviors—a continuous circle of
reciprocal influences over time. Moreover, forces outside of
the family (peer group, relatives and friends, employment,
housing and broader societal influences) influence their
respective actions. Ecological perspective thinking encour-
ages social workers to be curious about ‘‘What is going on?’’
rather than ‘‘Why is it going on?’’ and ‘‘How can the ‘what’
be changed?’’ rather than ‘‘the ‘who’ should be changed.’’
(Gitterman and Germain 2008, p. 54).
Level of person and environment fit refers to a person’s
perception of the ‘‘fit’’ between his/her physical, intellec-
tual, emotional, and motivational strengths and limitations
and environmental resources (family, social networks,
organizations, and physical space) to deal with a specific
life stressor(s) or challenge(s). Over the life course people
constantly strive to improve the level of fit with their
environments. When a person perceives the availability of
sufficient personal and environmental resources to deal
with a life issue, stressor or event, s/he experiences a
positive fit with the environment. The positive level of fit
supports and resources releases the person’s potential for
personal growth and sense of mastery However, when a
negative level of fit evolves between a person’s perceptions
of personal and environmental resources to deal with a life
stressor, s/he experience stress. How overwhelming and
disabling clients experience their daily life stress will lar-
gely depend upon the perceived level of fit between their
personal and environmental resources. The social work
clinician can help the client to improve the level of fit by:
1. Helping the client to develop more adaptive behaviors
(e.g., acquire new skills, change expectations, improve
motivation, mobilize personal resources, and/or
change attributions).
2. Influencing significant people in the environment (e.g.,
family member, member of peer group, employer,
organizational representative) to be more responsive to
the client’s needs.
Clin Soc Work J (2011) 39:204–211 205
123
3. Influencing the transactions between a client and her/
his environment (e.g., parent child, partner and partner,
child and teacher, client and organizational official).
While most psychological approaches limit their inter-
ventions to changing primarily the person; most social
work approaches focus on all three levels of interventions
to improve the level of fit. For this, if for no other reasons
we urge social work clinicians to stay true to their roots and
to the profession’s broad conception of social work func-
tion. Doesn’t this seem perfectly reasonable to you?
The ecological perspective provides a vision, a map, and a
guide for practice. For example, Mr. Jackson, 75-years old
suffered a brain bleed stroke, which led to significant vision
loss, cognitive disorientation, and balance problems. How
much stress he will experience upon discharge from the
hospital, transition into a rehabilitation center and discharge
home will depend on his perceptions of the level of fit
between his physical condition (stamina); motivation, out-
look on life, coping skills, meaning of the illness) and his
perceptions of his access to organizational resources (med-
ical specialists, physical therapists, nursing care); avail-
ability of social support networks (family, relatives, friends,
neighbors); flexible physical environment (wheel chair
accessibility of building and apartment); and financial
resources.
Figure 1 suggests the combined impact of a client’s
internal resources and limitations and environmental
resources and limitations (Gitterman and Germain 2008,
p. 115).
If Mr. Jackson has weak personal strengths (cognitive
impairment, chronic depression, lack of physical strength),
and limited environmental resources (minimal pension,
frail wife, no children, few friends) (A), he is at serious risk
for disorientation, deterioration, and disorganization. In
this case, the immediate attention of an active and directive
social worker with sufficient time to become a critical
resource for an extended period would be called for. In
contrast, if Mr. Jackson has strong personal strengths and
environmental resources (D), the social worker’s activity
might be limited to uncomplicated referrals, sug-gestions,
and emotional support. If Mr. Jackson has limited personal
resources and strong external resources (B), the social
worker is likely to search for essential organizational and
network resources to compensate for his bio-psycho-social
limitations. Finally, if Mr. Jackson has strong personal but
limited environmen-tal resources (C), the social worker
might help him to seek alternative resources or construct
new ones. By jointly assessing the person:environment
level of fit, social workers and clients can make informed
decisions about case focus and direction.
Life Model of Social of Practice
Since the ecological practice perspective provides a frame
of reference and a general map for case focus and direction,
a practice model or approach provides the concepts,
methods, and skills to implement the perspective. The Life
Model of social work practice is the primary model asso-
ciated with the ecological perspective. We will present two
conceptual schemas to demonstrate the model’s practice
utility—degree of client choice and life stressors.
Social work clients have differing amounts of choice in
accepting and/or rejecting social work services. Some peo-
ple seek social work services, others are offered social work
services and, yet others are imposed or mandated to receive
social work services. People who voluntarily seek social
work services are technically applicants until the practi-
tioner/agency agree to provide their services. Many appli-
cant/clients are ambivalent about seeking help. Thus, the
very act of seeking assistance is in itself stressful. People
usually request help when to do so is less stressful than the
status quo. The social worker explores the client’s life sit-
uation by asking such open-ended questions as ‘‘Please tell
me what brings you here?’’ When a client readily shares her/
his concerns, social workers have been taught to use minimal
encouragers to invite elaboration. Such minimal encourag-
ers serve ‘‘like the pats you give to a swing in motion to keep
it in motion’’ (Kadushin 1983 p. 160). To help the client
continue, the social worker provides supportive statements:
‘‘You were badly hurt,’’ ‘‘That was rough,’’ ‘‘Most parents
would worry about that.’’ Numerous other skills are utilized
(judicious waiting out of silence, verbalizing feelings,
paraphrasing, summarizing, sorting out ambivalence etc.) to
further explore and clarify client’s concerns.
Offering a social work service(s) poses more complex
practice challenges for most practitioners. The social
worker cannot begin with a general question like ‘‘Please
tell me what brings you here?’’ The responsibility is on the
social worker to offer a jargon free, clear, and concrete,
description of the agency and of potential social work
services. This is particularly critical in the work with
mandated clients who may have had difficult past experi-
ences with the ‘‘imposing of services’’ by a range of ‘‘well-
meaning’’ social service providers. Prospective clients who
Environmental Resources
Low High
Low
Personal Resources
High
(A) (B)
(C) (D)
Fig. 1 Person environment fit
206 Clin Soc Work J (2011) 39:204–211
123
are well informed about what is offered are less likely to
suspect a hidden agenda, such as a practitioner describing
one service while intending another. Social work practi-
tioners are often uncomfortable about intruding in people’s
lives and in directly identifying a potential life stressor,
event or condition (cancer, death of a loved one, rape, etc.)
The discomfort is readily conveyed by such behaviors as
focusing on forming a positive relationship with the intent
of easing gradually into the ‘‘serious’’ discussion later.
Social workers’ indirectness makes it more rather than less
difficult to share painful, perhaps taboo material. In offer-
ing a service, the social work clinician attempts to identify
the life stressor through the ‘‘eyes’ of the prospective client
rather than through the ‘‘words’’ of referring sources. As
Gitterman and Germain (2008, p. 167) noted,
…a teacher refers a child for being a ‘‘troublemaker’’.
While the teacher calls the child troublesome, the
worker calls him troubled, and the child says he is
being picked on.
By verbalizing the prospective clients’ possible perceptions
of their life issues, the practitioner demonstrates empathic
understanding, thereby increasing the likelihood that the
offer of social work services will be accepted.
Increasingly, social workers serve involuntary clients.
Clients mandated to receive social work services pose
ethical and professional dilemmas that emerge from the
dual social work functions of helping and enforcing. Social
workers providing mandated services should expect that
clients would have intense feeling about organizations and
professionals who have enormous power and control over
their lives. Court-mandated services contain prescribed or
proscribed consequences if clients fail to comply with court
orders. Generally, the court’s legal authority is transferred
to the agency and the social worker. The clinician is
encouraged to have a direct discussion with the client about
the service(s) being offered, as well as, about the mandate
and its limits, i.e., what the clinician is legally mandated to
report to the court (e.g., commitment of a crime, use of
drugs, and absences from counseling). Since compliance
with court mandates is often a minimal condition for
achieving the client’s goal, such as having a child returned
home, or escaping the restrictions of probation or parole,
the importance of this conversation cannot be overem-
phasized. When social workers are intimidated or are
judgmental of mandated clients, they tend to commit one of
two common practice mistakes. Uncomfortable with the
authority vested in their professional role, they avoid
dealing with the question of legal, organizational, and
professional authority or they set out to build a relationship
before risking the client’s anger, Social workers fail to
recognize that the they lose credibility and respect by
avoiding difficult conversations. We encourage clinicians
to be direct and honest about the source of the mandate,
their dual role of helper and enforcer, the limits on confi-
dentiality, and the potential consequences of noncompli-
ance, and definitions of noncompliance. Professional
directness and honesty decreases mistrust, and resistance.
Over the life course, people encounter inter-related life
challenges and stressors. These daily and ongoing stressors
include: difficult life transitions and traumatic life events,
environmental pressures, and dysfunctional transactions in
collective life (family, group, and community). In life-
modeled practice, practitioners and clients assess and
intervene in single and multiple life stressors. Life transi-
tions include stressful developmental transitions, difficult
social transitions and traumatic life events. Life transitions
consist of developmental transitions (e.g., adolescence) and
social transitions (e.g., beginnings and endings of rela-
tionships and experiences, birth and death). Traumatic
events (death of a child, physical and sexual assault, fatal
diagnosis, natural and person initiated disasters) are often
unexpected, severe, and overwhelming. Transitioning from
a victim to a survivor status is a long and arduous journey.
Social work has developed method and skills to help
people who are experiencing current as well as unresolved
transitions. However, in this area, specialized knowledge,
methods and skills from other disciplines can significantly
deepen responsive and effective social work practice.
Environmental stressors often arise from the lack of
sufficient instrumental and affective resources from some
or most social and physical environments. Chronic poverty,
insufficient affordable housing, poor schools, inadequate
health care, and violence are the major forces responsible
for both prolonged and cumulative stress. To deal with
environmental stressors, clients turn to organizations and
social agencies for assistance. These social organizations
and agencies serve as critical buffers and cushion these
environmental stressors. However, when they are unavail-
able or unapproachable, they exacerbate the client’s stress
and become additional stressors rather than buffers. Simi-
larly, social networks (kin, friends, neighbors, work mates,
and acquaintances) provide critical goods and services and
emotional supports. They serve as essential buffers against
life stressors. However, they also can be destructive, non-
supportive, or missing altogether. Social work has a long
and proud history of helping clients to negotiate their social
and physical environments and, when appropriate to
directly intervene on behalf of clients.
While families, groups and communities also encounter
life transitional and environmental stressor, their prob-
lematic internal process creates additional interpersonal
stressors. Scapegoating, monopolizing, withdrawal, devel-
oping and existing factions are illustrative of problematic
processes, which simultaneously negatively affect indi-
viduals as well as the collectivity.
Clin Soc Work J (2011) 39:204–211 207
123
Life transitional, environmental, and interpersonal
stressors are interrelated, and, at the same time, distinct.
When one is unsuccessfully managed, additional stressors
often erupt in other areas of life (the ‘‘spread phenome-
non’’). Cumulatively, they can overwhelm individual and
collective coping capacities, and the individual, group,
family, or community/neighborhood may move toward
disorganization. The client and social worker practitioner
can also create problematic communication patterns.
Helping with dysfunctional relationship and communica-
tion patterns is a critical social work function.
If we think of the ecological perspective as providing a
wide range lens (with zoom and split screen capabilities) for
understanding the complexities of an individual’s life cir-
cumstances, transactions, history and life place (identifica-
tions with gender, culture, etc.), we can consider the life
model as well as ‘‘borrowed’’ concepts, methods, and skills
as a close up lens. This close up lens allows us, having
assessed the person and environment, to ‘‘zero in’’ on par-
ticular areas, which may require additional intervention.
Interventions derived from other professions are often
introduced into the work with social work clients when
problems in individual functioning and intrapersonal distress
are central to the client’s presenting problem. Client and
worker negotiate a mutual agreement regarding the focus of
attention and intervention after consideration of personal and
environmental resources, as diagrammed above.
Integrating Methods and Skills from Other Profession’s
Approaches
We consider the following methods and skills based their
on implicit valuing of self-determination and respect;
centrality of the worker/client relationship; use of client
strengths and resiliency; and applicability to a wide range
of sociocultural conditions. Finally, they ‘‘deepen’’ and
extend fundamental social work methods and skills.
Here, we consider several major concepts, methods and
skills from cognitive-behavioral therapy, motivational
interviewing; narrative therapy and solution focused prac-
tices. Each concept, method and skill was chosen on the
basis of its meeting the criteria identified above.
A major premise of cognitive behavioral therapy is that
many problems in an individual’s functioning and well
being are rooted in their dysfunctional thoughts and beliefs
(Beck 1976) and that if these thoughts can be changed,
changes in affect and behavior will follow. Judith Beck
(1995) highlights the following principles about cognitive
behavioral therapy: requires an ongoing formulation of
clients and their problems in cognitive terms; occurs in the
context of a sound therapeutic alliance which emphasizes
collaboration and active participation; is goal oriented and
problem focused; initially emphasizes the present; utilizes
psychoeducation, teaches the client to ‘‘be her own thera-
pist’’ and educates for relapse prevention; is time-limited;
has structured therapy sessions; and teaches clients to
identify and modify their dysfunctional thoughts (pp. 5–9).
These principles generally align well with social work
theory and practice, although the relevance for consider-
ations of sociocultural influences is not explicit. However,
more recent developments (Granvold 1994) and clinical
applications (Northcut and Heller 1998) of the concepts of
schemas and attributions in social work practice highlight
their utility for understanding sociocultural influences. A
schema is a ‘‘basic rule of life’’, a cognitive structure or
template, developed early in life and reinforced by others
and experiences in the world; an attribution is the meaning
one makes of why things occur. Each can be influenced by
gender, familial, social, religious, cultural and ethnic sys-
tems. For example, a woman who is a victim of domestic
violence and had developed a ‘‘core belief’’ that ‘‘I am a
bad person’’ based on earlier experiences, may see her
assault by her partner as proof of her ‘‘badness’’ and
believe that he ‘‘hit me because I am bad and deserved it,
the man is the head of the household, I should have obeyed
him’’. In this case, the development of the clients’ schema
might be influenced by her gender, early and confirming
experiences, religion and societal beliefs about ‘‘the place
of women’’. The social worker trying to extricate her client
from a dangerous situation may experience the client as
‘‘resistant’’ to help unless she understands the power of a
maladaptive schema and attribution. Once this is identified,
client and worker can begin to look for ‘‘disconfirming
evidence’’ about her core belief and modify those schemas,
with a clear focus on the presenting problem. An under-
standing of these contributing sociocultural influences
would be critical in helping the client.
Socratic questioning is a commonly used cognitive
technique for the examination of these dysfunctional cog-
nitions and schemas. For example, in the work with the
domestic violence survivor the worker would guide the
client through a process of reasoning by asking questions
like ‘‘what is the evidence for that belief’’ and ‘‘what other
explanations might there be?’’ in examining her beliefs
about the cause of the violence. In addition to clarifying the
distortions in thinking, the worker would be modeling the
behaviors of self monitoring and problems solving, through
a series of questions that the client can them use on her own.
Motivational interviewing (MI) is particularly useful in
the work with mandated clients and others for whom
change appears elusive Many of these clients are seen as
‘‘resistant’’ or suffering from ‘‘secondary gain’’, neither of
which endears them to their workers. Originally developed
from work with substance abusing clients, motivational
interviewing methods and skills reflect an approach which
208 Clin Soc Work J (2011) 39:204–211
123
is highly consistent with social work practice and skills,
relying upon highly collaborative interventions, made
possible by the empathic connection between worker and
client. Underscoring methods and skills of motivational
interviewing is the belief that clients may choose to change
when they are ready to change (or not) and that reluctance
to change is normal rather than pathological. Rollnick and
Miller (1995) explain that the reluctance to change is
elicited from the client rather than imposed and ambiva-
lence about change must be explored. Because this is a
highly collaborative process, the techniques of motiva-
tional interviewing can be seen as series of transactional
processes in which the worker supports the client’s sense of
self-efficacy. Whereas cognitive therapy focuses primarily
on changing cognitions as a means of changing behavior,
motivational interviewing targets behavioral change as the
critical focus of intervention. Motivational interviewing is
highly compatible with the transtheoretical approach of
Prochaska and DiClemente, (1984), a stage theory of
motivational readiness. According to this formulation, cli-
ents move through precontemplation, contemplation,
preparation, action, maintenance and relapse. We would
tend to view these stages as fluid phases, in response to
natural variations in client readiness and in response to
external influences. For the social worker utilizing moti-
vational interviewing, an understanding of the client’s
readiness and ambivalence regarding change is critical in
determining interventions. For example, the adolescent girl
who is struggling with the purging behaviors of bulimia
nervosa, will present very differently depending upon
whether she is in the precontemplation or the action stage.
Attempts to ‘‘convince’’ the adolescent who is in the for-
mer stage to stop purging will likely increase the ‘‘resis-
tance’’ to do so, particularly if the purging behavior is
implicitly acceptable to her peer group. The client in the
action stage, however, will be able to begin to identify
those steps she might take toward change and predict some
of the ambivalence, which might block that change.
Clearly, motivational interviewing meets four of our five
criteria for compatibility with social work practice and
theory. Less is known about the model’s ability to respond
to a wide range of sociocultural factors and influences.
Narrative therapy and its associated techniques presume
that the client has a story to tell, that it is idiosyncratic and
that the client is the expert about her own life. This approach
is highly relevant for social work practice, particularly as it
pertains to responsive cross-cultural work. Narrative
approaches derive from postmodernism and social con-
structivism and emphasize the importance of meaning
making. The social work adage, ‘‘meet the client where the
client is’’ is particularly well suited to the narrative stance.
This model presupposes a high degree of client determina-
tion, worker respect for the client, mutuality, an
understanding of the strengths and resiliency that are present
(even if latent) in the client’s story, and is responsive to the
differences in client experience and expression as a result of
sociocultural differences. Freeman and Couchonnal (2006)
suggest that narrative strategies help clients define their
challenges through their narrative; increase their awareness
of relationships of power and domination; externalize their
challenges and issues; and recount personal stories of com-
petence and strength. Additionally, through their collabora-
tion, the worker helps the client to co-construct an alternative
narrative. Consider the case of Sally who had been sexually
abused by her 3 brothers and a cousin throughout her
childhood. Sally saw herself as ‘‘damaged goods’’ and her
‘‘story’’ revolved around herself as a ‘‘compliant’’ victim.
Sally appeared stuck in her narrative and could not even
imagine an ending or an alternative to her story. The worker
thought that something might be missing from the client’s
narrative, which kept her from moving forward and both
agreed that they seemed stuck. In conjoint sessions with the
client and her mother, it was revealed that the family had a
long history of sibling incest. As the client incorporated her
understanding of this ‘‘legacy’’ she was able to re-author her
story and she no longer felt that the abuse was something she
had ‘‘brought on herself’’. While the client continued to
struggle with many issues related to her history of abuse, she
no longer felt as powerless and alone.
Solution focused work shares with narrative approaches
constructivist theoretical roots along with a belief that
people hold the answers to the problems with which they
present. Though compatible with Rooney’s (1992) concept
of the importance of building motivational congruence
with mandated clients, solution focused work does not do
so in order to increase compliance, but to recognize that
people make their own choices (De Jong and Berg 2001).
This model and associated techniques shares with the
previous three models compatibility with social work val-
ues, worker-client mutuality, an emphasis on strengths and
resiliency and the extension of foundational social work
skills. Of the four models we consider, solution focused
work is the most compatible with cross-cultural work, both
because of its methods and because it has been ‘‘tested’’
with so many different cultural groups. Solution focused
work assumes the importance of context in understanding
behavior, a focus on behavior and cognition rather than on
feelings, and future and solution foci rather than upon the
past and problems (Corcoran 2000), all of which are con-
sistent with the needs and norms of many ethnic minority
clients. Lee (2003) argues further that solution focused
work specifically makes use of cultural strengths, through
the rejection of a pathological model, and through aware-
ness and utilization of cultural strengths and resources, and
through the use of the clients’ cultural worldviews. With its
focus upon solutions rather than problems, ethnic minority
Clin Soc Work J (2011) 39:204–211 209
123
clients may avoid the stigma associated with seeking social
work services.
Several specific strategies are central to solution focused
work all in the form of questions posed to the client about
potential solutions: the miracle question, exception ques-
tions, outcome questions, coping questions, scaling ques-
tions and relationship questions (Berg and De Jong 1996).
Typically, the client will be asked to consider times when
the ‘‘problem’’ was not present or was managed more eas-
ily; and to imagine what life would be like without the
problem. This latter question is usually presented as ‘‘If you
were to go to sleep and a miracle occurred overnight and in
the morning, the problem had gone away, how you would
know it. What would be different?’’ This question helps the
client to identify behaviors, which would be indicative of a
good outcome. Coping questions convey to the client the
worker’s acknowledgement of how well they are doing in
the face of adversity. This helps to strengthen the client’s
own sense of self-efficacy. For example, a young single
mother sought services from a local clinic because she was
‘‘barely making it’’. Her 12-year-old son was struggling
with the complications of juvenile diabetes and had frequent
medical crises. She also had two younger children at home
and struggled with her sense of competence as a mother. In
addition to the concrete services and referrals that the social
worker would provide, she utilized solution-focused ques-
tions to better understand the client’s perception of her
problem. In response to the ‘‘miracle question’’, the client
said that she would wake up in the morning and not be
preoccupied with her son’s health status. This allowed her
to focus on solutions, not problems. Exceptions questions
allowed her to acknowledge the many times she had
effectively managed her son’s crises and her life without her
current perception of ‘‘the problem’’. Scaling questions
helped her evaluate her situation and progress, by anchoring
her experiences from ‘‘most awful’’ to ‘‘most desirable’’.
Clearly, her son’s diabetic condition was not going to ‘‘go
away’’, but her focus on what was most troublesome for her,
her sense of efficacy as a mother attempting to cope with it,
was an important focus for the work. For her and many
clients, the uses of these techniques also serve to externalize
the problem, making it feel more approachable and less
entrenched.
In each of these case vignettes, the social workers relied
on their understanding of complex individual and envi-
ronmental influences in their assessments and mutual goal
setting. This social work perspective provided the frame-
work for identifying intervention strategies which targeted
specific problem areas. This allowed for the integration of
these techniques within a decidedly social work approach,
rather than a wholesale substitution for a ‘‘person only’’
focus.
Conclusion
Our profession has a long and proud tradition of under-
standing the complexities of people and their environ-
ments, offering services and doing so with a commitment
to the social justice issues that often compound private
problems. From the beginning of the twentieth century,
when the development of social work theory was primarily
influenced by the Settlement House Movement and Charity
Organization Societies. From the Charity Organization
Societies, psychological theory dominated almost exclu-
sively by Freud and the earliest behaviorists, our collective
knowledge base has burgeoned. These advances have been
unprecedented, welcomed, sometimes contradictory, and
pose both opportunities and challenges for social workers.
How do we maintain that which is fundamental to our
mission as social workers, while making decisions about
how to integrate ever evolving knowledge and methods—
whether it is the understanding of how relationships and
attachment processes influence brain structures and plas-
ticity or the complex processes involved in a person’s
desire and ability to change? Early on, we teach our stu-
dents about the importance of understanding the ‘‘level of
fit’’ between an individual and his environment. We pro-
pose that our borrowing of concepts, methods and skills for
social work practice be guided by this same concept of
level of fit. For example, to what degree does a particular
intervention reflect the underlying values, perspectives and
knowledge of the social work profession? How does a
particular theoretical concept further our understanding of
the complexities of our clients’ identities and lives? These
considerations should be our litmus test.
Today, social workers form the largest group of mental
health providers in the country and are often the only
providers in medically underserved areas (NASW 2005).
With the advent of licensure and insurance reimbursement
as well as the proliferation of social work doctoral pro-
grams, we are well positioned to be leaders in both the
provision of services and the development of integrated
intervention models. The very basis of our own social work
theoretical models grew out of the recognition of the
effects of social injustices on our clients’ individual and
collective lives and these models were integrative from the
beginning. As we are well into another century, in a
country where the divide between the rich and the poor is
growing disproportionately, we have an opportunity (and
perhaps a professional mandate) to revisit our own roots. In
1915, Abraham Flexner provoked quite a storm when he
told social workers that their profession lacked a distinctive
purpose and methodology that could be transmitted to
others. This resulted in the articulation of social work
theories that continue to form the basis of our professional
210 Clin Soc Work J (2011) 39:204–211
123
education and practice. Nearly a hundred years later, we
certainly meet the ‘‘criteria for a profession’’. Perhaps, in
developmental terms (a conscious borrowing of concepts!),
it is time for the profession to reexamine our ‘‘adult’’
identity as social workers by choice, proud of our title, and
distinct and distinguished among the professions.
References
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders.
New York: International Universities Press.
Beck, J. (1995). Cognitive therapy: Basics and beyond. New York:
Guilford Press.
Berg, I. K., & De Jong, P. (1996). Solution building conversations:
Co-constructing a sense of competence. Families in Society, 77,
376–391.
Corcoran, J. (2000). Solution-focused family therapy with ethnic
minority clients. Crisis Intervention, 6(1), 5–12.
De Jong, P., & Berg, I. K. (2001). Co-constructing cooperation with
mandated clients. Social Work, 46(4), 361–375.
Freeman, E., & Couchonnal, G. (2006). Narrative and culturally based
approaches in practice with families. Families in Society, 87(2),
198–208.
Gitterman, A. (2008). Ecological framework. In Y. Mizrahi & L. Davis
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of social work (20th ed., pp. 97–102).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Gitterman, A., & Germain, C. B. (2008). The Life Model of social
work practice: Advances in theory and practice (3rd ed.).
New York: Columbia University Press.
Granvold, D. (Ed.). (1994). Cognitive and behavioral treatment:
Methods and applications. Belmont, CA: Brooks Cole.
Hepworth, D. H., Rooney, R. H., Dewberry Rooney, G., & Strom-
Gottfried, K. (2009). Direct social work practice: Theory and
skills (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks Cole Cengage Learning.
Kadushin, A. (1983). The social work interview. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Lee, M. Y. (2003). A solution focused approach to cross-cultural
clinical social work practice: Utilizing cultural strengths. Fam-
ilies in Society, 84(3), 385–402.
Meyer, C. H. (1983). Clinical social work in the eco-systems
perspective. New York: Columbia University.
NASW (2005). www.socialworkers.org/advocacy/images/grmaterials/
GRLEGAgendaRpt2005 .
Northcut, T. B., & Heller, N. R., Eds. (1998). Enhancing psychody-
namic Therapy with cognitive-behavioral techniques. Northvale,
NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc.
Rollnick, S., & Miller, W. R. (1995). What is motivational
interviewing? Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 23,
325–334.
Rooney, R. H. (1992). Strategies for work with involuntary clients.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Shulman, L. (2009). The skills of helping individual, families, groups
and communities (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage
Learning.
Woods, M. E., & Hollis, F. (2000). Casework: A psychosocial therapy
(5th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Author Biographies
Alex Gitterman is Zachs Professor of Social Work and Director of
the Doctoral Program at the University of Connecticut School of
Social Work. He has published widely in the area of social work
practice and theory.
Nina Rovinelli Heller is Associate Professor and teaches in the
master’s and doctoral programs at the University of Connecticut
School of Social Work. She has written in the areas of integrative
social work theory and practice.
Clin Soc Work J (2011) 39:204–211 211
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Social Work Practice: A Life Model Gitterman, Alex;Germain, Carel B Social Service Review; Dec 1, 1976; 50, 4; ProQuest pg. 601
The literature by Gitterman, A. and Heller, N.R. (2011). Integrating social work perspectives and models with concepts, methods, and skills with other professions’ specialized approaches. Clinical Social Work Journal. 39. 204-211. provided us with various practice approaches that contribute to social work models. These included:
· Ecological Perspective
· Life Model
· Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
· Motivational Interviewing
· Narrative Therapy
· Solution-focused
Select one of the approaches discussed in class, and ellaborate on your understanding of the model and/or approach. You will do research on the model chosen to ellaborate on your thoughts and how you believe the approach addesses client self-determination, strengths and the social work competencies on engagement and assessment. You will find information on the competencies in your syllabus. You can use a case example to ellaborate your critical thinking on the approach you select. The following are questions to help you ellaborate on your thoughts:
1. What are the important points about the model?
2. How do the points address social work competencies?
3. In what sitation you would use the model? You can give a case example.
4. How does the model help you allow client self-determination?
5. What are some of the skills in the model that you would use? Why?
This assignment must be done in English and APA 7th Edition writing style. If you need help with the APA 7th edition, please visit the School Library to get guidance. If you quote the literature and do not use the APA to give credit to the author it is considered plagarism and your grade will be affected. This assignment requires 8 pages and does not include the cover sheet or bibliography.
