Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [New York University]On: 03 October 2014, At: 07:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 MortimerStreet, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Teaching inSocial WorkPublication details, including instructionsfor authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wtsw20
Teaching Problem Solvingin Macro-Level PracticesSalvatore Imbrogno PhD aa Ohio State University, College of SocialWork, Columbus, OH 43210Published online: 18 Oct 2008.
To cite this article: Salvatore Imbrogno PhD (1991) Teaching ProblemSolving in Macro-Level Practices, Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 5:1,157-176, DOI: 10.1300/J067v05n01_12
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J067v05n01_12
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever asto the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not beliable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation toor arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and privatestudy purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
24 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
014
Teaching Problem Solving in Macro-Level Practices
Salvatore Imbrogno
ZNTROD UCTZON
Knowledge acquisition and utilization in and about problem solv- ing is a primary educational goal in social work education and be- comes a critical function in professional practice.
There are a number of problem solving models available to social work educators; both for classroom teaching and learning and for course content in curriculum development. Variations discerned to the structuring of problematic situations are necessary as a response to the multiple social changes that are inevitable in macro-level practices such as, policy, planning and administration. These changes have varying impacts on the stability and adaptive capabili- ties of individuals, groups and communities. It is reasonable to con- clude that these changes will generate conflicting and contradictory claims and demands on the system. It results in an array of problem- atic situations.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the key models available to social work educators for structuring problematic situations. This would have a twofold benefit: it presents a pedagogical typology for classifying models available for teaching and learning; and sec- ondly, it serves as a conceptual foundation upon which to build models that are unique to the internal referents (i.e., social work values) and systemic boundaries (i.e., macro-practices) found in social work macro-level problematic situations.
- -
Salvatore Imbrogno, PhD, is affiliated with the Ohio State University, College of Social Work, 1947 College Road, Columbus, OH 43210.
Journal of Teaching in Social Work, Vol. 5(1) 1991 O 1991 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 157
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
24 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
014
158 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN SOCL4L WORK
The educational perspective adapted is to view macro-practices as comprising policy planning and development; program planning and management and project planning and operations as interrelated and interactive processes (Mayer, 1985). Once these functions un- dergo a "pedagogical integration," they become a macro-system for curriculum development; serve as an interdisciplinary synthesis for course content and provides an interprofessional perspective to practice. This orientation suggests the following:
1. policy, planning and administration can only be viewed as a highly integrated function in social work macro-practices.
2. a complex interactive process that creates a macro-system that is dynamic, in a perpetual state of flux and turbulence.
3. as a response to the stress, strain and tension that change en- genders, opposition emerges and creates problematic situa- tions necessitating a search for a problem solving model.
4. structuring problematic situations must reflect these changing conditions.
This analysis evolves in a 2 x 2 contingency table in which four major variations are explicated for analysis. The variations pre- sented are not meant to be mutually exclusive but serve primarily as a frame of references. For example, although a Socratic dialectic method is selected for special treatment in quadrant 11, some of its elements are derived from quadrant IV. It is selected as parsimo- nious in covering most exigencies expected in macro-practices. A dialectic method viewed from within this context, is a search for a rational consensus by those affected constituents holding to diamet- rically opposing positions. Hence, critical theory is integrated into the knowledge base of social work problem solving models. Its ap- plication to macro-level practices is illustrated.
CONCEPTIONS FOR STRUCTURING PROBLEMATIC SlTUATIONS
Before proceeding with a 2 x 2 contingency model, let us briefly examine the following systems of inquiry as representing the four
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
24 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
014
Salvatore Imbrogno 159
quadrants for structuring problematic situations in social work (Churchman, 1971):
1. A Leibnizian inquiring system is predicated upon a Newtonian world view of the applications of logic and pure rationality of the scientific method. A linear and causal explanation for a problematic situation can be empirically validated through objective and direct observations. Social and policy problems are efficiently and effec- tively solved through a quantitative analysis measured through the scientific instruments of statistics and probability equations. This social work has identified this problem solving role as that of educa- tor and/or researcher. A search for.replicability and predictability in a value free environment is a desired state.
2. A Lackean inquiring system is key to social work problem solving processes which strive to achieve an equilibrium by adapt- ing a Parsonian world view. Problematic situations are viewed as social perturbations. Stress, strain and tensions upset a system's equilibrium which therefore, precipitates a need for reaction. A sys- tem's equilibrium is represented by its internal referents (i.e., val- ues). They must be maintained and preserved through a social pro- cess of adjustment: identified in social work problem solving roles as mediator, broker and advocate.
3. A Heglian inquiring system views conflicts and contradictions as ubiquitous in social phenomena and a necessary condition for social change. Problematic situations are inherently controversial producing opposition that represent multiple values and diverse in- terests. These diametrically opposing positions can be reconciled by raising the inquiry to a higher level of abstraction. The problem solving model seeks to build upon isolated and parochial positions to produce a broader perspective. The dialectic method has been used as a social work problem solving model. It is usually seen in the form of agitation in a social action role.
4. Kantian inquiring system views the problem solving process as a social experimentation in a heuristic pursuit for desired ends and expected outcomes. It is used when confronted with an "original problem" in which there is little or no empirical data for problem solving and where a course of action must be taken. This world view holds that problem solving capabilities improve experientially over time and in development. Hence, the original structure given
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
24 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
014
160 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN SOCL4L WORK
to confronting a problematic situation changes requiring corres- ponding changes in the perceived desired ends. There is no known social work problem solving role for this world view.
A Leibnizian inquiring system is represented by quadrant 1 in the ensuing 2 x 2 contingency table; a Lockean and Hegelian in quad- rant 11 (i.e., diametrically opposing ends) and a Kantian in quad- rant 111. Quadrant IV is interpreted here as a social issue and not a social problem; hence, outside the scope of this analysis. If quad- rant IV is taken as a problematic situation, then problems are con- ceived as having no beginning or end but are continuously in a state of transition and transformation. The Socratic dialectic method inte- grates elements of this conception with the elements of a plurality of opposing ends manifested in quadrant 11.
MA CRO-PRACTICE CURRICULUM
With some minor variations, standardized stages to macro-level analysis can be presented as a universal criteria for practice (Dunn, 1981). These stages have application to any analytical model cho- sen for problem solving. For example, Newtonian world view would organize these stages in a linear causal analysis (i.e., "scien- tism") while a cyclical model would view each stage as affecting others in the exchange of information as the system (i.e., organiza- tion or community) in its totality, affects each stage in a complete interrelated and interactive process (i.e., system design). This later view provides the rationale for integrating policy, planning and ad- ministration into a macro-level human service systems.
Let us characterize the following stages to macro-level practices as axiomatic:
1. structuring problems (i.e., approximating the problematic sit- uation);
2. forecasting goals and objectives (i.e., a search and discovery of solutions);
3. recommending actions (implementation of an operating model);
4. monitoring outcomes (i.e., validation); 5. evaluating performance (i.e., verification);
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
24 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
014
Salvatore Imbrogno 161
6. and restructuring problems (i.e., new challenges and direc- tions)
Conceptualizing and specifying a problematic situation is a pri- mary task in macro-practices. A 2 x 2 typology identifies four variations to structuring problems. One of these variations, quad- rant 11, is selected.for special treatment: where the feasible means are known and in agreement but the desired ends are not. This con- ception is identified on a 2 x 2 contingency table as an ill-struc- tured problem (see Table 1).
Opportunity is therefore, presented to explicate quadrant 11 as the mainstream conception for confronting opposition (i.e., "a clash of values") in social work practices: pluralisticlincremental consensus model of problem solving and decision making. Consen- sus becomes a critical variable that sets this quadrant apart from the others. Consensus is in an expected outcome to conflicting or con-
TABLE 1. Structuring Macro-Level Problems
DESIRED ENDS
DISAGREEMENT STRUCTURED I STRUCTURED
KNOWN B
IN AGREEMENT
I.
KNOWN B IN WELL-
AGREEMENT STRUCTURED
FEASIBLE MEANS
111.
UNKNOWN 8 IN MODERATELY
UNKNOWN a
IN DISAGREEMENT
11.
ILL-
STRUCTURED
IV.
NON-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
24 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
014
162 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN SOCIAL WORK
tradictory positions taken on what ought to be the terminal goal state to a problem. An alternative to a pluralistic/incremental is a dialectic discourse in a rational consensus. Both a PI1 and D/R are lodged in an ill-structured quadrant.
STRUCTURING MACRO-LEVEL PROBLEMS
A primary learning task is establishing the nature of relations between sensing a problem, conceptualizing the problem into a sub- stantive one and then specifying a scientific inquiry for formal solu- tion rest largely upon how a social worker organizes and manages the reality of a problematic situation (Mitroff and Kilman, 1978):
1. discerning a felt need in a societal problematic situation (i.e., increase in family disorganization)
2. conceptualizing a substantive problem (i.e., interdependence of problems of mental illness with other social problems) within an ontological/epistemological context or world view (i.e., Newtonian, Hegelian, Kantian etc.).
3. specifying the substantive problem into a formal model (i.e., pluralistic/incremental or dialectic discourse/rational consen- sus) that establishes the relation between the feasible means (i.e., human, social and material resources) and desired ends (i.e., an expected outcome to a problem).
It should be emphasized that students should assume that affected constituents of an agency and stakeholders both with their expecta- tions, perceptions and idealizations of the purpose for human and social services must be given opportunity to contribute and partici- pate to social development.
The feasible means available and the desired ends of outcomes could be both known and agreed upon. This degree of certainty results in a well-structured conceptualization and specification. A well-structured problem controls and regulates opposition by estab- lishing a logical connection between the means and ends. Con- versely, problematic situations can be so nefarious as to fall within the realm of uncertainty where the problem itself reflects competing views (i.e., assumptions, definitions and explanations of a prob-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
24 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
014
Salvatore lmbrogno 163
lem). An issue emerges instead that is, the feasibleness along with the possible desired effects are both unknown and/or both are in disagreement.
It is necessary for students to be able to distinguish between pol- icy issues and problems. Social issues are non-structured: means and ends are both unknown or in disagreement; conceptualizing the problem is the problem. Issues pose value dilemmas in the ambigu- ity and indeterminacy intrinsic to determining what is the problem- atic situation. In a more abstract perspective, it can be said that non- structured problems have no beginning or end but reach higher levels of complexity.
Some social problems are conceived as moderately-structured. Moderately-structured approaches problematic situations as techno- logically means oriented. It is an "end to ideology": .that is, the ends are known to every good mental health policy problem (i.e., everyone is for eliminating illness). Some problems, particularly those emanating from the public sector, are considered technical "know-how" problems in the use of resources. It is not so much a "critique of ends" as it is a search for feasible means to become more technically efficient and effective in problem solving (i.e., guaranteed income maintenance programs).
Contrary to the view that social problems can be scientifically solved through a well-structured analysis in value free environment and that social problematic situations are issues evolving in disputes over defining and identifying a problem to be confronted, andlor that problems are a technical matter, an ill-structured model holds that desired ends present value dilemmas representing competing positions in a clash of values.
Multiple values and diverse interests that characterize pluralistic systems, create conflicts or contradictory positions. A professional decision to proceed with quadrant I1 is taken with the knowledge that each quadrant can "fit" into another or different conception (system of inquiry) and specification (analytical model) for structur- ing problems. 111-structured as noted, represents desired ends that are unknown or in disagreement: a view considered a closer approx- imation to the modes of argumentation familiar to those involved in formulating social policy, planning programs and administration,
A primary task for education in macro-practices is to describe
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
24 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
014
164 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN SOCIAL WORK
alternative models on confronting "choice among competing val- ues" (Rein, 1971). Quadrant I1 epitomizes what analysts generally experience: determining "what are the right things to want" (Tit- mus, 1971). It is equally assumed that a pluralisticlincremental ana- lytical model is a classical representative of quadrant I1 and is the essence of a curriculum content in social welfare policy and pro- grams. A PA problem solving model is derived from Parsonian structural/functiona1 theory.
It is propitious for social work educators to introduce an alterna- tive model. An alternative perspective is presented as an emerging model: dialectic discourse/rational consensus is selected as alterna- tive conception to a "critique of ends." A DIR problem solving model is adapted from the concepts and specifications of critical theory (Benhabib, 1986). A comparative analysis on how these two models organize and manage a clash of values is presented.
Finally, methods and procedures for applying a DIR model is presented for inclusion in course syllabi. A major intent is to expli- cate the attributes of a Dm for "converging opposites" as the most viable conception for ill-structured problems.
CONFRONTING DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSING POSITIONS
AS A LEARNING PROCESS
The process of conceptualizing macro-level problems in quadrant I1 involves the selection of a system of inquiry that perceives pol- icy, planning and administration as processes of argumentation (Hambrick, 1974). Course content often overlooks this reality. The following represents a "systems world view" on why this might be the case:
It was noted that macro-level systems are continuously in a state of actual or potential change. Claims are made by stake- holders whose vested interest compel them to eliminate some policies, modifying existing policies or initiating new policies. Perhaps more importantly, the expected outcomes to policy are inherently ambiguous and indeterminant for the following reasons:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
24 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
014
Salvafore Imbrogno 165
1. The formulation of future macro-level goals are expressed as idealizations, expectations and desirable ends;
2. These ideals or desired ends must be transformed intd reality requiring interpretations on the original meaning given to pol- icy.
3. Discretionary administrative decisions are required to operate policy in response to real world applications in which actions must be taken.
It is understandable why some social workers cite examples of formerly adopted policies and administrative procedures that fail not because they were ill-conceived but because they were never fully implemented as originally intended.
In sum, learning and teaching in problem solving must come to grips with the following: expected outcomes to social policy, plan- ning and administration will change in development; the structure of macro-level problems change as a task is completed and the fo- cus shifts to new challenges and direction. Emerging changes cause stress, strain and tension to varying degrees by individuals affected. It is compounded when the values underlying the norms for small group relations and patterns are changed: that is, the emerging value changes are incongruent with the existing values of those responsi- ble for implementing them.
The conditions that give rise to resistance, conflict, and antago- nism can be expressed in a number of different ways (i.e., fight, flight, surrender or non-action). The following four conceptions be- come the nucleus to a course presentation on the behavioral re- sponses to opposition.
I . Physical Separation
A logical and rational analysis can be applied to draw distinctions between value dilemmas (i.e., facthahe, rightlwrong, quantitative1 qualitative, objectivitylsubjectivity; truthlfalsity etc.,). As noted, arguments can be advanced from an authoritative stance on assump- tions derived from expertise in social research or from experienced policymakers. Conflicting claims taken on a position are mutually exclusive. There is no logical claim to contradictions.
One can avoid confrontation or argumentation by assuming posi-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
24 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
014
166 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN SOCL4L WORK
tions of self-imposed indifference and detachment. One can be compelled to withdraw into isolation. Values are promoted, pro- tected and contained from one another. Opposing positions present conflicting and contradictory claims. Both often present their posi- tions as objective and neutral augmented by causal, quantifying and analytical data advanced as facts separated from values.
2. Oppressor and Oppressed
Opposition can be viewed as an inevitable result of hierarchical levels of authoritative relations in organizations where one rules (i.e., elite) others are ruled. Compliance and submission is achieved through use of power. Power in this context is defined as a social process in which those affected by a decision (i.e., op- pressed) will act upon the decision (i.e., oppressor) without consid- ering the benefits or consequences of that decision: choice is elimi- nated.
In contrast to physical separation, opposition based upon hierar- chical distinctions necessitates a social interactive process where oppression becomes a source of binding. The oppressor and the oppressed produce a bifurcation model in a binding behavioral rela- tion toward opposition.
3. Polar Opposites in Value Dilemmas
This can be characterized as a struggle between the enhancement, maintenance and preservation of existing values representing a macro system (status quo) and those advanced by an adversary group who are standing by waiting to replace those in power. Rec- onciling differences is one viable, expedient and pragmatic avenue for resolution. A pragmatic mode of argument can be presented by placing emphasis on similarities in realizing desired ends of oppos- ing cases.
Or polar opposites can be taken to an irreconcilable position ne- cessitating a discontinuity with the past and a move toward a more advanced level of understanding. This leads to more complex prob- lem solving. Diametrically opposing positions expressed in highly antagonistic contradictions can produce radical short term social changes in a grand societal design for long term changes. In this
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
24 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
014
Salvatore Irnbrogno 167
form of dialectics (determinism/materialism), social change lacks continuity in a developmental process in which the subject deter- mines purpose and direction.
Conflict produces a trifurcation of behavioral relations. Notions of periodic discontinuity and major upheavals on macro-level de- velopment has never been solved or resolved by the dialectics of mutual exclusiveness (i.e., thesis and antithesis) even in socialistic countries aspiring to a communist state.
4. Values Dilemmas as Complementation
This conception serves as an alternative to both a dialectic deter- minism and incremental consensus. Rational consensus is purpose- ful in striving for a complementation of opposites. An harmonious union of opposites leads to a convergence that naturally produces a new and higher level of dialogue. In a real world of opposition there exist harmonious opposites: analysislsynthesis; subjectivitylobjec- tivity; separation and integration; convergence and divergence etc. Accepting synthesis, subjectivity, integration and convergence as part of an inquiry into opposition is no less scientific than "scien- tism."
Complementation of opposites requires that the participants tran- scend their oarochial ~erceotions on desired ends to macro-level goals to a nkre advanced aAd complex level which given the har- monious nature of the interaction of the participants "ought" to be more just and encompass a higher good. Intrinsic to this conception is a value-critical mode of argument. It evolves in an ethical princi- ple of mutual dependence of equality and equity (Rawls, 1971).
A conception that identifies how opposing values are to be orga- nized and managed is a revelation on how reality is approximated: a world view on meeting conditions of conflict, antagonism or con- tradictions. Conceptions adapted for the explanations given to the meaning of opposition plays a major role in the selection of an analytical model (i.e., problem specification) most appropriate for solving a problem. Simila'rly, the greater the degree of commit- ment, participation and contribution of an affected constituency to- ward a conception to a problem the greater will be the success of an analytical model for problem solution.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
24 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
014
168 JOURNAL OF TUCHING IN SOCL4L WORK
This course material highlights how an analyst can run the risk of choosing a wrong conception regarding opposition intrinsic to ill- structured problems when the right one should have been chosen (errors of the first kind). For example, mediating conflict resolution in a Lockean system of inquiry is chosen when a thrust toward syncretic convergence can build upon isolated parochial perspec- tives to produce a broader perspective and higher level of inquiry. It is equally possible to commit an error of the third kind: solving the wrong problem (Raiffa, 1968).
MAINSTREAM PERSPECTIVES ON CONFRONTING OPPOSITION (P/I)
Once a conceptualization for confronting opposing values is pre- sented to a class for defining the internal referents for a substantive problem an analytical model is chosen for treatment (i.e., model solving).
One analytical perspective for confronting opposition is a plural- istic incremental consensus model. A basic postulate is grounded in utilitarianism that rejects the lack of utility taken in extreme posi- tions on both the "left and right." They lack viability, expediency and pragmatism. Positions taken must be marginal to or dependent upon the existing values and norms of the system.
Opposing positions must therefore modify, adjust or reconcile their differences to "fit into" a community of minds. One way to achieve this is by engaging social groups in conflict resolution (i.e., bargaining and compromise to reach consensus). An expected out- come is to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" while preserving and maintaining the established norms and values of the system. Here students become sensitized to the dynamics of small groups.
As noted, opposing positions represent a multiple values and di- verse interest: hence, many claims on policy, a plan or its adminis- tration. Positions on opposition are therefore, activated by the dy- namics of a social group process. Some elements of each group's values and interests are presented in a bargaining session which coincidentally transforms the original opposing positions taken into a compromise. There is an underlying norm to this process: it serves
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
24 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
014
Solvatore Imbrogno 169
as an end in and of itself to be pragmatic and expedient in dissipat- ing extremes. Coalition formations ensure that a group's values and interests will be realized at the next bargaining session for reconcil- ing opposites.
Incremental decision making is critical in this analytical model process. They are reactive, remedial and fragmentary for the fol- lowing reasons:
1. a value input must 'fit into' the existing value system which incidentally, sets the ground rules or norms for problem solv- ing (Braybrook and Lindblom, 1963).
2. incremental change in this analytical context is not purposeful or even planned incremental "small" change.
3. that each problematic situation enters the P/I process for the first time for remedial actions in isolation from what preceded and will succeed it.
Conflict resolution is the bedrock to the content presented for social work practices in social planning and community develop- ment. A ground rule to conflict resolution requires agreement among the participants that negotiations evolve in preserving and maintaining the basic values and norms of the system. This inciden- tally is the same milieu in which these problematic situations arose in the first place. The original problem presented is not expected to be solved but resolved. This is no small distinction since mediation, remedy and expediency are processes that allows an analyst to move away from a social ill without ever confronting the problem. As a result, the configuration of the original problematic situation is changed without confronting the original reasons giving rise to it and/or confronting the opposition that followed in its wake.
Ironically, this approach to scientific inquiry of a substantive problem never runs the risk of choosing the wrong analytical model (P/I) when the right one should have been chosen (error of the sec- ond kind) only because it is not compelled to confront the original conception of the problematic situation.
This analysis indicates that a P/I lacks ingenuity, innovation and purposefulness: that in fact, it lends itself to mediocrity leading to the preservation and maintenance of the status quo.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
24 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
014
1 70 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN SOCIAL WORK
Perhaps its greatest attributes lie in micro-level policy implemen- tation of a project planning and operations. For example, often problems arise in a split between the needs of a clientele group and available resources. This leads to a broker's role in bringing the two together. Or the oolicv ~ractitioner can serve as an advocate in se- curing, protecting and promoting the human and social rights of an affected constituency (Connaway, 1988). Here the student is intro- duced to various modes of intervention.
These mainstream intervention modalities perceive opposing val- ues, interests and belief systems as amenable to social adaptations and adjustments. A primary role for the student as analysts in this problem solving framework is to facilitate social adjustments through education, information and referral, mediation, environ- mental manipulation, coalition formations etc.
AN ALTERNA T N E TO CONFRONTING OPPOSITION (Dm)
A '"critique of ends" provides an alternative model for prbblem solving. A student as a social work problem solver can initiate a social process designed to provide opposing positions opportunity to present, defend and justify their claims. A dialectic discourse refers to a noncoercive interactive developmental process where un- limited discussion exists between free and equal participants (Guess, 1971). This should not be confused with a classical inter- pretation of "participatory democracy" that is a primary expression for reconciling in a process striving for incremental consensus.
Let us examine four principles explicated from critical theory and adapted to "fit" into a dialectic discourse/rational consensus model for ill-structured problems:
1. Conditions prevail that are non-deprived and non-coercive in an open dialogue. Information is made available and subject to scrutiny by all participants. It is the practitioner's responsibil- ity to ensure a free and open flow of information through for- mal and informal networks. Key to this dialectic process is in acquiring, utilizing and sharing usable information for social
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
24 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
014
Salvatore Imbrogno 171
dcvelopmcnt. A pitfall is misinformation; an overkill in infor- mation or an insidious withholding of information (i.e., non- decision making).
2. Creating these optimal conditions for the expression of diverg- ing values and interests that can produce a rational consensus in a complementation of agreement is a formidable problem (Benhabib, 1986). It entails the following:
A. knowledge "in and about" the integrative processes of macro-level policy, planning and administration;
B. acquisition and utilization of skills and methods necessary for the formulation (policy), transformation (planning) and implementation (administration) of a policy.
C. knowledge in the dynamics of group processes particularly in reference to unraveling complexities of opposing value positions.
This principle presupposes an analycentric mode of ar- gumentation: the macro-level practitioner can advance as- sumptions about the validity of methods and rules in ad- vancing an analysis "of and for" social change.
3. It is in this open climate of airing obstacles and hindrances to understanding that participants in a dialectic discourse can es- tablish optimal conditions for realizing desired courses of action. An underlying assumption is that the participants are committed to the view that it is feasible and desirable to tran- scend parochial perspectives and advance to a higher level of analysis.
4. A search for the optimal conditions can only be realized through a communicative process in which competing values and interests are purposefully explicated for a dialectic dis- course. The social process of exchanging information is criti- cal to this analytical process. It cannot be made to serve as an end in and of itself. Process must involve meaningful content and in so doing, must also become outcome oriented.
In sum, a dialogic is the essence of social work education that encourages critical thinking. A concept of equal and unconstrained
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
24 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
014
,172 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN SOCML WORK
dialogue eliminates the eitherlor positions taken on opposition. A pursuit toward optimally sweeps in parochial perspectives of idio- syncratic positions. Entering an interactive process for the purpose of achieving a self-interest are minimized by the conditions govern- ing the purpose for a dialectic discourse. Optimization of a collec- tive position is contingent upon conditions created for a reciprocity of actors and small groups in a dialectic discourse. Finally, a stu- - *
dent concentrating on macro-level practices is engaged an ob- serverlparticipant: an optimal form of creative rationality.
BUILDING COMPARA TZVE ANALYSIS INTO COURSE CONTENT
A unitv of oa~osites in a rational consensus differs markedlv from a mkliorat;;e and distributive process of social adjustmen; notably, incremental consensus. An incremental consensus is engi- neered to be pragmatic in reactive measures for reasons of expe&- encv that lead to small stem in remedv. Incremental consensus achieves immediate gratific&ion in the f&m of short term benefits. Coalition formations is a key strategy for this model. It infers recon- ciling through the consolidation -df power. Coalition formations adapt incremental/pluralistic values for problem resolution which by definition is social adjustment and not social change.
Key to the differences between a PA/ and a DIR analytical model lies in perspectives on the use of power for social change.
As noted, opposing positions in a DIR model are seen as both a bipolar complementation and as mutually inclusive (i.e., harmoni- ous). As a result, opposing groups find it to their advantage to change their positions to a new balance of power in reaching for a higher level of inquiry and discourse. Changes result from a contin- uous interaction of contrasting and similar forces of power for sta- bility and creative growth. An interaction of opposing forces evolves into an interrelated and interdependent process leading to greater complexity. The greater the level of complexity in confront- ing new challenges and directions the greater the problem solving capability of its participants.
In direct contrast to the reactive posture of incremental consen-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
24 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
014
Salvatore Imbrogno 1 73
sus, a rational consensus views the power derived from diametri- cally opposing positions as a source of energy to generating proac- tive social change. In sum, it can be said that a rational consensus in a dialectic discourse ensures the following:
1. individuals and small groups are guaranteed an opportunity for direct input into the process;
2. provides a social process in which affected constituents are guaranteed that their participation and contribution will make a difference in final outcomes;
3. groups in a reciprocity of collective actions can further their common group goals.
Each represents a different typology of problem solving. A Pi11 forms a typology of problem solving that facilitates and mediates in assuming that the values intrinsic to opposing positions are prede- termined and will persist under different and similar conditions. A DIR typology acquires an ability to differentiate among opposing positions, discern value dilemmas and make remote associations: meaningful patterns between diverse and seemingly irreconcilable positions. Two distinct typology emerge: problem solving as rem- edy and problem solving as integration. A student involved in prob- lem integration builds on parochial and a priori predicates by en- abling participants to converge their opposing positions to a new and higher level of discourse through a communication process most conducive to complementation.
CLASSROOM STRATEGIES FOR APPLMNG A DIR MODEL
It is now propitious to enumerate upon the conditions governing the effective use of a D/R model. The following basic practice skills and methods for problem solving must be acquired: a capability of responding to various modes of argumentation (i.e., advocacy claims); attention and sensitivity to the dynamics of individual and group motivations; a program designed for purposeful participation, contributions and commitment and finally, acquiring an interdepen-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
24 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
014
174 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN SOCLAL WORK
dent and interrelated view to complex systems of practice and de- velopment.
1. Each participant and small group must be given equal opportu- nity to set the agenda for argumentation; share in determining a course and direction for deliberations; a length of time for communication and to be informed who is to be represented as affected constituents.
2. Each participant (and small group) must be open for confron- tation in a raising of questions; demanding justifications for claims made and providing explanations within the context of a discourse.
3. Each participant must be given equal opportunity to express their needs, interests, desires and expectation without any in- ternal or external constraints. Participants must know that they will be heard and their contribution will make a difference. An open and free discourse encourages genuine and sincere inter- active exchange of information.
4. Each participant knows that they play a major role in determin- ing the purpose and direction of a problem solving process and that values and norms are expected to change over time and in development.
5. Individuals and small groups must have equal access to infor- mation, particularly since it is expected that conflicting and contradictory claims will emerge in response to a problem. This insures equal chance to make assertions, recommenda- tions, provide explanations and to challenge others in a con- frontation but thoughtful manner. No one is exempt from questioning and criticism; all participants are accountable for their behavior.
These conditions set the stage for a dialectic discourse. The in- quiry moves beyone remedy, mediation and mediocrity to a more enlightened, emancipated and reflective problem solving precess. This would be in keeping with the concept of building normative judgments and interrelated decisions that integrate macro-mezzzo- micro practices.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
24 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
014
Salvatore lmbrogno I75
SUMMARY
A 2 x 2 contingency table was presented as a typology which characterized the various ways in which to structure policy prob- lematic situations in macro-level systems. Opposition discerned in ill-structured problems reflected a value plurality and a diversity of interest, very characteristic of the value dilemmas experienced in organizations and communities. Two models were explicated from an ill-structured quadrant for analysis.
Mainstream problem solving models of contemporary macro- level practices characterized a pluralistic-incremental model. Intrin- sic to this analysis was an alternative selection of dialectic to con- flict analytical models as well as a dialectic discourseJrationaI model. A D/R was viewed as the most parsimonious problem solv- ing model for ill-structured problems in teaching policy, planning and administration.
REFERENCES
Benhabib, S. (1986). Critique, Norm and Utopias: A Study of the Foundation of Critical Theory. New York: Plenum Press.
Braybrookc, D. & Lindblom, C. A Strategy of Decision. New York: The Free Press, 1963.
Checkaway, B. (1986). Strategic Perspectives on Planning Practice. Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books.
Churchman, W.C. (1971). The Design of Inquiring Systems. New York: Macmil- Ian.
Connaway, R. and Gentry, M. Social Work Practice. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1988.
Dunn, W. (1981). Introduction to Public Policy. New York: Prentice Hall, Inc. Gentry, Martha. (1987). "Coalition Formation and Processes." Social Work
With Groups. Vol. 10, No. 3 Fall. Guess, R. (1981). The Idea of a Critical Theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt
School. London: Cambridge University Press. Hambrick, R. (1974). "A Guide for the Analysis of Policy Arguments." Policy
Sciences. 5. Mayer, R. (1985). Policy and Program Planning: A Developmental Perspective.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Mitroff, 1. and Kilmann, R. (1978). Methodological Approaches to Social Sci-
ence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1978. Perlman, H. (1986). The Problem Solving Model in Turner, F. (Ed.) 3rd Ed.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
24 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
014
1 76 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN SOCIAL WORK
Social Work Treatment Interlocking Theoretical Approaches. New York: Free Press.
Raiffa, H. (1968). Decision Analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Rein, M. (1970). Social Policy: Issues o f Choice and Change. New York: Ran-
dom House. Rein, M. (1976). Social Science and Public Policy. Baltimore: Penguin Books. Rawls. J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press. Titmus, R. (1971). Social Policy. New York: Pantheon.
for faculty/professionals with journal subscription recommendation authority for their institutional librafy . . .
If you have read a reprint or pholocopy of this article, would you like lo make sure thal your library also subscribes to this journal? I f you have the authority lo recommend sub- scriptions lo your library, we will send you a free sample copy for review with your librarian. Just fill out the form below-and make sure thet you type or wrlte OM clearly both the nerne ot the lournel end your own name end address.
( ) Yes, please send me a complimentary sample copy of lhis journal:
(please write in complete journal title here-do no1 leave blank)
I will show this journal lo our institutional or agency library for a possible subscription. The name of my instilutional/agency library is:
~ - -
INSTITUTION:
ADDRESS:
CITY: STATE: ZIP:
Return to: Sample Copy Deparlmenl, The Haworlh Press. Inc., 10 Alice Street. Binghamton. NY 13904-1580
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
24 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
014
