Professional Social Work • October 2014
18
plain speaking
Photo by: ITV/REX
Mind your language
Every profession has its jargon. But are the terms commonly used by social workers always appropriate?
And what impression do they create among ‘service users’? Shahid Naqvi takes a look at the issues
T
he legal world talks about writs,
liability and litigation. Teachers
refer to SATs, gifted and talented,
challenging behaviour. As for
medics and financiers, they
sometimes appear to be speaking a completely
different language altogether.
Social work is no stranger to having its own
jargon. What perhaps makes it different from
other professions is that it is a very human
activity involving direct work with people who,
more often than not, are at their most
vulnerable (another word use open to debate).
So the question is do terms such as ‘front
line’, ‘intervention’, ‘assessment’ and ‘service
user’ help or hinder good practice?
Mary O’Reilly, an advocate for people with
mental health issues, believes some of the
language used in social work can exclude
service users and is geared more to endorsing
professional authority.
She said: “It makes you feel uncomfortable
and reluctant about opening up. It is like the
headmaster and the pupil. That creates a
distance.
“Anything that can be said can be said in
simple, understandable language. It doesn’t
matter how important it is.”
The word ‘compliance’ is one Ms O’Reilly
would like to see banned from use in practice:
“It’s an awful term. It sounds custodial and
controlling. ‘Absconsion’ is another punative,
controlling term. It turns people into
criminals.”
‘Service user’ versus ‘client’ to describe
people coming into contact with social workers
is a keenly contested area of debate.
An online Community Care forum last year
received the following comment: “Service user
is accurate and to the point. The people using
the services are service users. Job done.”
Conversely, another contributor said:
“Service user is not a helpful term as it conveys
the idea that people are a burden on services…
client is much better as it is neutral”.
Ms O’Reilly agrees: “I’m sick and tired of
‘service user’. It seems to take the humanity out
of it. Client seems more egalitarian.”
Of all the terms used in social work, ‘front
line’ is perhaps the most contentious currently.
BASW’s own governing Council is among
those believing its military connotation makes
it unhelpful to describe social work.
Responding to a PSW Twitter discussion,
one contributor claimed: “Front line is an
offensive term setting ‘battle lines’ between
social workers and service users”. Another said:
October 2014 • Professional Social Work
plain speaking
“The military analogy is plain wrong”. One
social worker complained of being referred to as
working in the ‘front line’ and in the ‘firing line’.
Sue Kennedy, lead in Social Work at the
University of Northampton, believes the term is
unhelpful for a variety of reasons.
“My concern is that it has now become a
front line between social workers and service
users. A ‘them and us’.
“I am also concerned when we use the term
because we then get into which services are
front line and which aren’t and that plays into
the hands of a government which can say ‘we
are not taking services away from the front line’
such as child protection, but are not providing
therapeutic group work for children who have
been abused.
“In my day we used to do group work with
families. I would argue that is a front line
service.”
Ms Kennedy also fears defining a front line
leads to defensive practice.
“The impression is that we are going to
come and do something to you. Front line is a
punitive type of social work. Already there is
that barrier which makes it difficult to develop
a relationship.”
Understood
According to Donald Forrester, Professor of
Social Work at Bedfordshire University and
academic lead on the Frontline training scheme
for graduates, the term gains greater currency in
professions where there is a chasm between
those who still practice and those who don’t.
“In my opinion front line is primarily
intended to differentiate between practice and
those in management or leadership positions.
“In social work the latter tend not to practice
unlike in medicine where senior medics will still
practice. ‘Front line’ helps communicate that
difference.”
That sense of working ‘in the field’ with real
people rather than in an office is why
‘Frontline’ was adopted as the name of social
work’s new Teach First style fast-track for
graduates training programme.
Its founder and Chief Executive Josh
MacAlister told PSW: “The term ‘frontline’ is
used as a way of describing the human point of
contact between social workers and families. As
well as being extremely challenging, ‘frontline’
work is where change for children can take place
and so the term should be embraced.
“It’s important that the language used to
describe social work can be widely understood
by the public.”
BASW England Manager Maris Stratulis
added: “For social workers in the field coping
with high caseloads, limited resources and
cutbacks, the day-to-day job very much feels
like a front line. It’s not about being in combat
with service users, it’s about advocating for
19
“LANGUAGE IS A MASSIVE TRIGGER FOR ME.
YOU SAY ‘INTERVENTION’, I WOULD SAY
‘WE REALLY NEED TO HELP YOU’. AS A
CHILD I HEARD THAT WORDS LOADS
BUT IT MEANT NOTHING TO ME”
them in very difficult circumstances. When we
talk about the ‘front line’, clearly we are not
referring to a military battleground in this
context. Words evolve and ‘front line’ is now
often used in a range of settings when referring
to the sharp edge of service provision.”
Social work can also have new terms foisted
upon it, often fuelled by a particular agenda.
Take the Government’s ‘Troubled Families’
initiative, arguably a more politically correct
way of identifying people some may previously
have referred to as ‘problem families’.
According to social work academic Stephen
Crossley, it’s a meaningless construct aimed at
suggesting society’s ills can be fixed by sorting
out the most troublesome families.
“The group may exist on paper, they may
exist in local authorities data systems, but they
do not exist in the real world. ‘Troubled
families’ have been constructed as an official
social problem with no clear definition of what
constitutes a ‘troubled family’ and no research
or evidence worthy of the name to support the
existence of such a group.”
In effect, says Mr Crossley, local authorities
can “use whatever criteria they like” to define
families that cost the public purse so as to meet
their local ‘turn around’ target.
Perhaps ‘troubled families’ should be treated
with the same caution as another divisive term
used by some politicians – ‘hard-working
families’. By inference, a family on benefits is
through this implied not to be hardworking.
And so what should we make of that most
commonly used word in social work –
‘vulnerable’? To some, it’s overly paternalistic,
as, arguably, is ‘looked after’.
Mental health ‘service user’ Mark Ellerby
says: “I think the term ‘vulnerable’ carries a lot
of connotations.
“Personally I wouldn’t like to be called a
‘vulnerable adult’ because we are talking in
ways which are normatively charged.
“The thing is, any term that implies we need
help through vulnerability carries the same
meaning – such as carer, care coordinator and
primary care trust.”
‘Intervention’ can be troubling for some
because of its clinical, surgical sound. And what
about ‘assessment’? Jenny Molloy, a care leaver
who’s book Tainted Love published under her
writing name Hope Daniels brings together the
stories of people who have been in care, is not a
fan of either term: “Language is a massive
trigger to me from my childhood,” she says.
“You say ‘intervention’ as a professional, I
would say ‘we really need to help you’.
“As a child, I heard that word loads but it
meant nothing to me. What I needed to know
is do you care? Are you going to help me and
how are you going to do that? ‘Intervention’ is
lazy, it is corporate.”
Likewise ‘assessment’. “People say ‘we are
doing this for your assessment’, ‘it depends on
what your assessment says’. But none of us
knew what it was so why use it?” says Jenny.
“If someone is assessing me they are
spending time to get to know me in order to
see what they can do to help me. So why can’t
they say that?”
Vigilance
‘Contact’, used to describe meetings between
parents and their children in care, potentially
suffers the same militaristic connotation as
‘front line’. It’s also used by ufologists to
describe alien encounters.
But is ‘access’, the previous term for such
arrangements, any better? Does a better
alternative even exist?
The meaning of words, as any lexiologist will
point out, is ever-evolving and the emphasis we
place on them changes over time.
Social work, like every profession, cannot be
condemned for having language shortcuts. But
the sensitive and very human nature of its work
perhaps means the profession has a greater
need to guard against language that
depersonalises and stigmatises.
As Avery Bowser, Chair of PSW’s editorial
advisory board points out, a key task of the
profession is to monitor the use of language:
“Part of the business of social work must be
constant vigilance in relation to language and a
willingness to constantly unpack words and
phrases to tease out hidden agendas, power
imbalances and general bilge.
“We need to support each other in doing
that, particularly those training or new to the
profession and BASW has a critical
PSW
support and leadership role in this.”
To comment on this or any article featured in
PSW email [email protected]