Practice relevant points i have discussion and
Excerpt via ‘Discussion and Results’ phase:
NASW’s ethical concepts flow from the six stated values: service, social justice, dignity and worth of the person, need for human relationships, sincerity, and skills. All four views can be regarded as ways of operationalizing the assistance value. Interpersonal justice is explicitly known in both the multiple views approach in addition to the NASW values. Distributed power appears to encompass several values: need for human relationships, dignity and really worth of the client, integrity and competence.
Only $13.90 / page
The main one perspective that is not as obviously tied to the NASW values is that worried about evidence-based practice. However , evidence-based practice could be considered an over-arching perspective if the cultural worker insists that right now there be scientific evidence, acquired before the involvement or practice occurs, that it may effectively serve the client. That is certainly, it shows promise of meeting the client’s needs in a manner that attends to his network of relationships and recognizes his dignity and worth. With this light, it would seem that evidence-based practice is particularly relevant to the NASW principles of service and competence.
Strengths and Challenges
Main strengths from the multiple points of views approach happen to be that it:
Anticipates potential blind spots on the part of the social worker
Aligns with the NASW Code of Integrity
Provides a guide for first assessment
Can provide alternatives each time a satisfactory result cannot be come to by a method or approach
Benefits the social worker as well as the customer (most clearly in the shared power perspective)
Some of the major challenges for the approach will be:
Keeping all perspectives in constant perspective. It would be easy to drift into a mode of practice that emphasizes several perspectives and ignores other folks.
Overcoming any tendency to focus on problems in the client rather than his or her talents and potential.
Finding empirical evidence relevant to the situation at hand. This can be challenging and time-consuming – and, for some interpersonal workers, not just a particularly interesting activity. (This seems like an excellent opportunity for cooperation among staff. One who gows best on study might operate tasks using a colleague who rather interact with the public. )
Overcoming obstacles imposed by simply settings or perhaps agencies stemming from money arrangements, hierarchical (top-down) structure, weak or authoritarian command, etc . It can be noteworthy that after DiFranks (2008) surveyed a national sample of 206 social workers, she located that there was more discord between establishing requirements and social workers’ ethics and values in public places agencies and managed attention settings within private companies. )
With respect to the last-mentioned and maybe the most strong challenge, Mattaini and Lowery cited a finding that these setting-imposed boundaries “… could possibly be counterbalanced to a substantial degree through empowerment-oriented staff expansion, a lifestyle of shared power in the organization, and strong management leadership pertaining to empowerment practice ” Making use of the shared power perspective, Mattaini and Lowery added that, “Social workers who also recognize their own power as well as the potential benefits of those around them can often marshal support pertaining to important shifts in firm practices. ” (p. 48).
DiFranks, N. In. (2008). Sociable workers and the NASW Code of Values: Belief, patterns, disjuncture. Interpersonal Work, 52( 2), 167-176.
Mattaini, Meters. A. Lowery, C. Big t. (2007). Points of views for practice. In M. Mattaini C. Lowery (Eds. ), Foundations of cultural work practice: a graduate text (4th ed. ), 31-63. Washington D. C. NASW Press.
National Relationship of Interpersonal Workers. (2008). Code of ethics of the National Association of Sociable Workers. Recovered from