SAP Project Report
Perspectives of social work students on the relevance of
relationship-based practice in contemporary social work
Lauren Morgan
Dr Peter Unwin
Dr Raluca Zanca
Introduction
In times of austerity academics and practitioners are looking to relationship-based
practice as an emergent response to deal with the potential shortfalls in
contemporary social work. The purpose of this research was to explore the current
thinking about relationship-based practice by gaining an insight into the perspectives
of twelve students at the University of Worcester currently undergoing social work
training. The methodology comprised of a literature review, followed by two focus
groups across both cohorts of Masters in Social Work course exploring students’
perceptions and understanding of relationship-based practice in relation to their
recent placements and their learning from the course. Findings were gathered with a
view to producing a teaching and learning resource to inform the future curriculum.
Theoretical Background to Relationship-based practice
Relationship-based practice can be linked to Carl Rogers’s person-centred
approach. Rogers’s philosophy is based on the idea of individuals discovering their
authentic values and beliefs, and having a sense of self-motivation and choice in
regards to their actions (Howe 2009). Existential philosophy also supports this,
conveying that individuals are responsible for their own actions and are free to
become whomever they wish (Howe 2009). It is within a helping relationship that
Rogers’s core therapeutic conditions of warmth, empathy and genuineness can
provide the desirable environment to enable a client to realise their own potential,
and if these conditions exist within a relationship then personal change will occur
(Howe 2009). Furthermore, Howe (2009) suggests that practitioners who take a
critical perspective whilst reflecting on their practice are deemed to value selfawareness and subsequently improve their use of core conditions with clients.
Using Bowlby’s attachment theory to define the quality of early childhood
attachments can be influential in assessing the relationships made between the
social worker and service user, as well as whether the service user is able to
establish positive relationships (Teater 2010). Supporting this, Stevenson (2005)
highlights that feelings that arise in professional relationships may be, sometimes
unconsciously, linked to earlier experiences. This demonstrates the importance of
understanding service users’ pasts, as well as social workers recognising their use of
self, in order to support service users in their present and subsequently their future
relationships.
1
All social work theories acknowledge the value of relationships, whether this is as a
fundamental part of the theory or the initial starting point to bring about change
(Howe 2009). Within relationship-based practice, emphasis is placed on the quality
of the relationship as defining its effectiveness. For example, the ecological theory
focuses on developing the individual’s engagement within the environment
surrounding them; consequently, it could be argued that building up an effective
relationship is crucial for this form of intervention to be considered efficacious. A
study completed by the Centre for Mental Health found that the quality of the
relationship a client had with their social worker determined their attendance to
parenting programmes, which supported them in coping with children who have
behavioural problems (McNicoll 2012).
Literature Review
Social work practice in England remains in a state of turmoil, “without a robust
identity capable of addressing public criticism, or a strategy to fend off the everincreasing demands of government” (Jordan and Parton 2000: p.259). Following a
series of tragedies that have largely been addressed via procedural and managerial
responses, social work is in need of refocusing (Ruch 2005). Serious case reviews
(SCRs) following the deaths of vulnerable children and adults highlight a number of
recommendations, but these are also mostly concerned with the improvement of
procedures and training (Brandon et al. 2010). Although there is value in the
recommendations made, such as the need for improved multi-agency working and
increased professional curiosity and challenge, Ruch (2005: p.121) highlights that
reclaiming relationship-based practice in contemporary social work “has the potential
to respond to some of the existing shortcomings of practice”. Howe (2014) has
subsequently supported this view in his assertion that the establishment and
maintenance of helping relationships with service users enables practitioners to gain
an understanding of the emotions and mental states that are at the root of
individuals’ behaviour and thus leads to more effective interventions.
Relationship-based practice has been at the heart of social work since the
nineteenth century (Howe 2009). Wilson et al. (2011) state that social work is shaped
by political and social trends and as a result the re-emergence of relationship-based
practice is as a response to the need to understand individuals in the current context
of uncertainty and risk. Yet the effectiveness of a relationship is not easily measured
and therefore could be perceived as insignificant (Ruch et al. 2010). Doel (2012)
conveys that previously success was based on the partnership working of social
workers and service users in a professional relationship, whereas now success is
based on the achievement of targets enforced by organisations that reflect changes
in policy created by the government. This demonstrates a reductionist view of
service users as consumers and practitioners as commissioners, which does not
promote the idea that relationships are both central to social work practice and to
social workers’ understanding of the complex nature of individuals (Howe 1998a).
Wilson et al. (2011) add to this argument in their perception that with the shift in
labelling from service users to customers, this implies that individuals are rational
decision-makers without complex circumstances needing to be considered. Similarly,
Sudbery (2002) states that this managerialist approach bypasses the life
experiences of service users. Dominelli (2010) emphasises that globalisation has
resulted in the state commissioning more services to be delivered by private and
voluntary agencies and subsequently this has marginalised relational social work
practice.
2
To promote relationship-based practice there is a need for organisations to afford
practitioners the time and support to build relationships with service users but also to
be able to reflect on them (Ruch 2005). According to Howe (2008) encouraging
reflection during supervision permits social workers to remain self-aware and in tune
with their own emotions. By reflecting on their emotions, in consultation with others,
social workers can recognise how their work with service users is emotionally
affecting them whilst also thinking about how their emotions affect service users
(Howe 2008). Therefore, if there is a lack of reflective space provided for workers,
Howe (2008: p.187) proposes that this could lead to organisations eradicating their
most essential resource of “the emotionally intelligent, available and responsive
social worker”. Furthermore, Ruch et al. (2010) stress that in times of austerity, the
effective relationships built between professionals and service users are an essential
resource.
Within social work practice it could be considered that a ‘one size fits all’ approach
fails to recognise the uniqueness of individuals. Ruch (2005) proposes that
relationships are a vehicle to professionals gaining a holistic impression of the
complexity of individuals’ internal and external worlds in order to subsequently
intervene. Howe (1996) articulates that contemporary social work, influenced by neoliberal philosophies, places emphasis on the present and future performance of
service users and in effect their past becomes irrelevant. Thus, this suggests that it
is the service users’ performance that matters and not the root cause of their
behaviour. Their past is not analysed in order to explain their current behaviour, but
instead in regards to future expectations (Howe 1996). Therefore, it could be claimed
that social workers now concentrate on what service users do rather than why they
do it; effectively moving from an approach that considers the inner psyche and social
contexts of service users, to one that engages with service users at a much more
superficial level (Howe 1996).
Practitioners who fail to address or challenge service user issues or complex
behaviour risk acting oppressively, as well as going against the values of social work
(Ruch et al. 2010). By avoiding challenging issues, practitioners are not engaging
holistically with individuals and therefore they are not creating a relationship that
could be considered as meaningful and honest (Ruch et al. 2010). According to
Ferguson (2005) social workers’ anxieties about the completion of administrative
tasks impacts on the level of involvement they are able to achieve with service users,
which inevitably is at the expense of the professional relationship. Additionally, Doel
(2012) proposes that relationships are essential in understanding the strengths of a
service user, which will evidently aid social workers to empower service users and
promote change. Supporting this claim, Ruch et al. (2010: p.246) convey that the
creation of effective relationships can support vulnerable people to recognise the
positive changes they are capable of making, perhaps as a result of feeling “worthy
of another’s interest and respect”.
Power is a key element to consider when establishing a relationship with a service
user, and therefore social workers should attempt to work in partnership with service
users, in order to help distribute power (Phung 2014). However, equalising power is
dependent on the organisational and social contexts influencing both the social
worker and the service user (Phung 2014). For example, a social worker may need
to exert their legal power when acting in the best interests of a service user. Within
the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC 2012) standards of proficiency,
3
power is acknowledged under sections 2.6 and 2.9. In particular 2.9 states that
social workers should “recognise the power dynamics in relationships with service
users and carers and be able to manage those dynamics appropriately”.
Teater (2010) proposes that it is part of the social workers’ role to work antioppressively, by encouraging change both within the individual and in their
surrounding environment, as this may be obstructing the individual’s ability to
change. By a social worker understanding the importance of self-awareness and
therefore recognising how their values, experiences and perceptions affect the
relationship developed with service users, this can contribute to anti-oppressive
practice (Howe 2009).
Harrison and Ruch (2007) discuss the significance of reflective practice in
maintaining relationship-based practice; by providing space for practitioners to reflect
on encounters with service users and think about what actions they took and most
importantly why they chose to take them and what happened as a result.
Practitioners that use their knowledge of prior experiences and training to guide their
reflections in determining the reasons for their current actions are able to provide
responses, based on their use of self, to the unpredictable behaviour often presented
by service users (Harrison and Ruch 2007). Reflective analysis is incorporated into
the training of social work students, which Harrison and Ruch (2007) see as a vital
basis for the development of reflective and relationship-based practice. However, it
could be debated that establishing these approaches beyond qualification is then
dependent on the reflective spaces provided by organisations and the integrity of the
worker. According to Howe (2009) the quality of a professional relationship matters
the most in circumstances when an individual is in an anxious, angry or distressed
state, all of these being everyday occurrences in social work practice.
In contrast to these above views, relationship-based practice has been criticised by
traditional radical theorists as practice that conceals oppression and keeps those
most deprived “quiet and in their place” (Howe 2009: p.156). Ruch et al. (2010) state
that although establishing a professional relationship holds value in contemporary
social work this is not in isolation and having access to resources is also key. A
further difficulty with relationship-based practice is the history of poor quality
relationships individuals have so often experienced; it can be considered challenging
for the individual to communicate with others, particularly in social situations and
circumstances that can be considered as emotionally demanding (Howe 1998b).
However, it is the role of the social worker to contain challenging emotional situations
and to demonstrate their availability to individuals, including those who are externally
expressing powerful emotions. Thus, it is through the medium of an effective
relationship that provides both service users and social workers with the “opportunity
for reflection, emotional growth, rational planning and decision making” (Howe
1998b: p.177). Finally, Trevithick (2003) emphasises that professional relationships
are a two way process, where by social workers and service users not only affect
one another, but also acquire knowledge and develop as a result of this process.
Method
The project aimed to explore the current thinking about relationship-based practice,
by gaining an insight into the perspectives and understanding of students undergoing
social work training. Students from both cohorts of the Masters in Social Work were
approached during their taught sessions with information about the project. Those
4
that were interested then voluntarily contacted the lead researcher via e-mail and a
suitable time was arranged for the research to be conducted around the students’
studies. Students were made aware of the nature of the project and that taking part
would not affect their academic studies. Two focus groups were carried out, six
students from the year 1 cohort and six students from the year 2 cohort of the
Masters in Social Work course. Therefore, this enabled twelve students to articulate
their perceptions and experiences of relationship-based practice from both practice
placements and their learning from the course so far.
This research recognises its potential for bias in that students are new to the
profession and have identified that they want to work with people in meaningful
ways. There may have also been some research bias in that the lead researcher
was a member of one of the cohorts from which the focus groups were formed and
the students coming forward for this elective research activity may already have had
predispositions toward the value of relationship-based practice.
Focus groups involved five core questions that were prepared prior to the focus
group; however, conversations were further influenced by prompts created from
areas of interests that arouse from the literature review. Students were given core
questions to read prior to the focus group commencing. These questions were:
1. What does the term ‘relationship-based practice’ mean to you?
2. What have you learnt particularly from the course so far about
relationship-based practice?
3. Are there ways in which you consider relationship-based practice to be
valuable?
4. Do you feel there are any constraints in promoting relationship-based
practice?
5. Are there alternative approaches you consider to be more effective and if
so what approaches are these and why?
Results/Outcomes
Findings suggested that students from both cohorts of the Masters in Social Work
course had a good grasp on relationship-based practice whilst also recognising the
constraints around promoting it in practice, particularly within a statutory
organisation. A key theme that arose from the research was the recognition of a
need for self-awareness. Students felt that it was really important that you know
yourself as a professional within that relationship in order to help service users.
Another theme that both focus groups raised was the idea of practicing in a relational
way as being an inherent ability stating:
“I think that it is something you possess”,
“It’s part of you”,
“I believe that most of the time we use relationship-based practice without knowing”.
Students in the Year 1 cohort discussed the appropriate use of self-disclosure and
one student discussed how a social worker had revealed that they were in debt in
order to relate to a service user managing a debt issue. The social worker had
5
stated, “I’ve got an open and an honest relationship with the service user…I’m able
to share such information”.
Professional boundaries were another theme highlighted from the research, students
felt that you needed to strike a balance and one student stated that she saw
relationship-based practice as meaning “you’re professional yet you’re warm and
approachable”. This perspective was further supported by comments made such as
“recognising the importance of the relationship but also managing that with the
pressures” and noting that the relationship has “got to have boundaries…so it’s
about maintaining that”.
Students’ discussions included the ways in which service users could create a
barrier to promoting relationship-based practice. One student suggested that “service
users, especially if it’s statutory intervention, (are) not wanting you”. Students also
recognised that relationship-based practice could be unhealthy through an overly
dependent relationship e.g. “a service user may become reliant on you or dependent
on you”. This last statement underlines the importance students placed on
boundaries and knowing when to end the professional relationship. In addition to
this, students discussed the preconceptions that some service users may have about
the role of the social worker and how the media heavily influenced these
preconceptions. One student stated that “especially in children’s services there is
this idea out there not always helped by the media that social workers take children
away and very little else”.
Students identified there may be times when building up a rapport is not necessary,
such as in times of crisis. When discussing a service user one student stated “they
need action and sitting and talking about it isn’t helpful”. Both focus groups debated
whether they felt relationship-based practice was an intervention in its own right or if
it needed to be used in conjunction with other social work interventions. Students
stated, “I don’t believe that relationship practice on its own is enough”, “I have seen
people work completely without a relationship” and “I think you’d always develop
relationships regardless”. These quotations demonstrate the contrasting thoughts
around relationship-based practice. Students also recognised from experience of
working with social workers that they “know that…relationship is really important but
sometimes they don’t have the capacity…to promote it in practice”. Furthermore,
students discussed expectations stating, “I think as a professional there’s some kind
of expectation to be able to build rapport and to build the relationship…with the
service user so that you can intervene”.
Students discussed the organisational barriers to relationship-based practice, such
as being “bogged down by bureaucracy”, “going towards a management form of
social work so tick box assessments” and one student stated “if you’ve got such high
caseloads how can you effectively put in enough time to work with each individual
and then report everything as well”. Students stated that by having to “record
everything then and there…overshadowing the ability to just sit there and build that
rapport naturally”. Another student discussed how the University has been open and
honest about saying the “relationship is like the ideal and yet when you’re in statutory
there’s a lot of constraints and management…and actually that’s (relationships)
getting marginalised”. Therefore, students felt that it is “about having the opportunity
to establish that relationship-based practice”.
6
Students commented on current practice, stating “it is all down to money and time”,
“it costs money, relationship-based practice” and “that relationship has got to be
established very quickly”. Furthermore, students highlighted an important point that
in current practice that is heavily reliant on targets and results “you can’t quantify
relationship-based practice”. However, one student commented that within the
organisation they worked for they were “encouraged to get out and meet people
face-to-face to build relationships”, but this was because their “manager sees the
sort of nurturing of those relationships as central to getting the results”. Therefore,
although this organisation is seen to be promoting relationship-based practice it
could be questioned whether this is part of another agenda.
Students deemed working in partnership with service users as essential and one
student stated, “our team will actively seek feedback from the people that we’re
working with”, suggesting this is reflected in the organisational context. Students
discussed how “relationships don’t necessarily have to be good…to get results” and
how a service user may use the inconsistency of some social work relationships to
their advantage, “the service user can either be affected adversely by it or actually
manipulate it”.
Students also discussed how both organisations and individuals could promote
relationship-based practice in social work with regards to reflective supervision.
Students felt there was a need to “make sure you’re having adequate supervision”
but also acknowledged that “supervision might be a month apart” and therefore it
could be suggested that the onus is on practitioners as individuals to challenge and
ensure they received regular and adequate supervision. Students discussed their
learning from practice placement and one student stated “my practice educator was
very skilled…so yeah it gave me skills to self-reflect and look at things from different
approaches”. A student described how after finishing social work training a person
might become complacent by “not having somebody you know constantly reinforce
relationship-based practice could potentially affect a worker’s ability to put that at the
forefront”. This is an area that would need further research to evidence whether
social workers do in fact become complacent in using relationship-based practice
post training.
It was highlighted by one student how traditionally relationship-based practice “in the
past has been scrutinised because it’s…deemed as wishy-washy”. However, overall
students in the two focus groups perceived relationship-based practice as being core
to contemporary social work practice, stating that it is “fundamental to social work
practice”, “vital”, “integral” and should be “at the heart of your practice”. One student
stated they felt that “you don’t get a true picture unless you have the
relationship…you just end up having the presenting needs - you don’t actually have
the person’s story”. Another student indicated that they had witnessed the work
undertaken by a social worker and this “had a really positive outcome and I’m
confident that that was because the relationship the social worker had with the
family”.
The following diagrams are suggested as core learning aids for future use in the
social work curriculum:
7
“the relationship is vital”
“I’ve got an open and
an honest relationship
with the service
user…I’m able to share
such information”
“encouraged to get out
and meet people faceto-face build
relationships and our
manager sees the sort
of nurturing of those
relationships as
central to getting the
results”
“had a really positive
outcome and I’m
confident that that was
because the
relationship the social
worker had with the
family”
“relationships are integral”
Benefits of
relationshipbased practice
“I feel you don’t get a
true picture unless
you have the
relationship…you just
end up having the
presenting needs you
don’t actually have the
person’s story”
“ensuring that’s at
the heart of your
practice”
“our team will
actively seek
feedback from the
people that we’re
working with”
“fundamental to social work
practice”
“relationships don’t
necessary have to
be good…to get
results”
8
“bogged down by bureaucracy”
“Service users especially if its
statutory intervention not
wanting you”
“going towards a management form of social work so
tick box assessments”
“endanger of becoming over
familiar”
“record everything…
overshadowing the ability to
just sit there and build that
rapport naturally”
“a service user may become
reliant on you or dependent
on you”
“complacency…and not
having somebody you
know constantly reinforce
relationship-based practice
could potentially affect a
worker’s ability to put that
at the forefront”
“high caseloads how can you
effectively put in enough time to
work with each individual and
then report everything as well”
Barriers of
relationshipbased practice
“it costs money relationshipbased practice”
“it is all down to money and time”
“that relationship has got to be
established very quickly”
“preconceptions that some service users may
have about the role of the social worker”
“you can’t quantify relationshipbased practice”
“supervision might be a month apart”
“know
that…relationship is
really important but
sometimes they don’t
have the
capacity…to promote
it in practice”
“relationship is like the ideal
and yet when you’re in
statutory there’s a lot of
constraints and
management…and actually
that’s getting marginalised”
“I think it’s about having the
opportunity to establish that
relationship-based practice”
9
SELF-AWARENESS
“I think it’s also really
important that you know
yourself as a
professional within that
relationship”.
TRADITIONAL IDEA OF
RBP
“relationship-based
practice in the past has
been scrutinised because
it’s…deemed as wishy
washy”
INHERENT
“I believe that most of the time we use a
relationship-based practice without
knowing”
“recognising the
importance of the
relationship but also
managing that with the
pressures”
Key themes of
relationshipbased practice
EXPECTATIONS
“I think as a professional there’s
some kind of expectation to be
able to build rapport and to build
the relationship…with the service
user so that you can intervene”
“by the relationship continually
changing or breaking down…the
service user can either be affected
adversely by it or actually
manipulate it”
BOUNDARIES
“you’re professional
yet…you’re warm and
approachable”
INTERVENTION IN IT’S
OWN RIGHT?
“I don’t believe that
relationship practice on its
own is enough”
“I have seen people work
completely without a
relationship”
REFLECTIVE SUPERVISION
“make sure you’re having
adequate supervision”
INTERVENTION WITHOUT RBP
“a crisis situation that they need action and
sitting and talking about it isn’t helpful”
“my practice educator was
very skilled.. so yeah it gave
me skills to self-reflect and
look at things from different
approaches”
10
Conclusion
Overall, the study achieved its aim of identifying and analysing the perspectives of
students on the relevance of relationship-based practice in contemporary social
work. The value of relationship-based practice was strongly reflected in the focus
groups whose views resounded with the pro-relationship based literature (e.g. Ruch
2005; Howe 2014). Further research would be required in order to determine
whether students’ perspectives and commitment to relationship-based practice
change in the contemporary workplace. The above learning and teaching tools
concerning the ‘Benefits’, ‘Barriers’ and ‘Key Themes’ of relationship-based practice
could be used in the future taught curriculum of the Masters in Social Work course
and during practice placements to continue to raise awareness on the topic of
relationship-based practice to enable social work students to further develop the
knowledge and skills required to maintain relationship-based practice throughout
their professional career. The learning and teaching tool created for this study could
also be potentially transferable to not only social work education, training and
practice, but across all disciplines involved in human services.
Reference List
Brandon, M., Sidebotham, P., Bailey, S. and Belderson, P. (2010) A study of
recommendations arising from serious case reviews 2009-2010. [Online] Department
of
Education.
Report
number:
DFE-RR157.
Available
from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/18252
1/DFE-RR157.pdf [Accessed 30 January 2015].
McNicoll, A. (17 October 2012) Client/social worker relationship ‘critical’ to
engagement with parenting programmes. Community Care. [Online] Available from:
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/childrens-servicesblog/2012/10/clientsocial-worker-relationship-critical-to-engagement-with-parentingprogrammes [Accessed 12 February 2015].
Doel, M. (2012) Social work: the basics. London, Routledge.
Dominelli, L. (2010) Globalization, contemporary challenges and social work
practice. International Social Work. [Online] 53 (5), 599-612. Available from: Sage
Premier 2014 [Accessed 14 January 2015].
Ferguson, H. (2005) Working with violence, the emotions and the psycho-social
dynamics of child protection: reflections on the Victoria Climbé case. Social Work in
Edcuation, 24 (7), 781-795.
Harrison, K. and Ruch, G. (2007) Social work and the use of self: on becoming and
being a social worker. In: Lymbery, M. and Postle, K. (eds) Social work: a companion
to learning. London, Sage Publications, pp. 40-50.
Health and Care Professions Council (2012) Standards of proficiency. London.
Howe, D. (1996) Surface and depth in social-work practice. In: Parton, N. (eds)
Social theory, social change and social work. London, Routledge, pp. 77-97.
11
Howe, D. (1998a) Relationship-based thinking and practice in social work. Journal of
Social Work Practice, 12 (1), 45-56.
Howe, D. (1998b) Psychosocial Work. In: Adams, R., Dominelli, L. and Payne, M.
(2002) Social work: themes, issues and critical debates. Basingstoke, Palgrave
Macmillan, pp. 170-179.
Howe, D. (2008) The emotionally intelligent social worker. Basingstoke, Palgrave
Macmillan.
Howe, D. (2009) A brief introduction to social work theory. Basingstoke, Palgrave
Macmillan.
Howe, D. (2014) The compleat social worker. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
Jordan, B. and Parton, N. (2000) Politics and social work. In: Davies, M. (eds) The
blackwell encyclopaedia of social work. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, pp. 258260.
Phung, T.C. (2014) Relationship-based social work. In: Lishman, J., Yuill, C.,
Brannan, J. and Gibson, A. (eds) Social work: an introduction. London, Sage
Publications, pp. 229-240.
Ruch, G. (2005) Relationship-based practice and reflective practice: holistic
approaches to contemporary child care social work. Child and Family Social Work.
[Online] 10 (2), 111-123. Available from: Wiley Online Library [Accessed 13 January
2015].
Ruch, G., Turney, D. and Ward, A. (2010) Relationship-based social work: getting to
the heart of practice. London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Stevenson, O. (2005) Foreward. In: Bower, M. (eds) Psychoanalytic theory for social
work practice: thinking under fire. London, Routledge.
Sudbery, J. (2002) Key features of therapeutic social work: the use of relationship.
Journal of Social Work Practice. [Online] 16 (2), 149-162. Available from: Academic
Search Complete [Accessed 19 January 2015].
Teater, B. (2010) An introduction to applying social work theories and methods.
Maidenhead, Open University Press.
Trevithick, P. (2003) Effective relationship-based practice: a theoretical exploration.
Journal of Social Work Practice. [Online] 17 (2), 163-176. Available from: Academic
Search Complete [Accessed 10 February 2015].
Wilson, K., Ruch, G., Lymbery, M. and Cooper, A. (2011) Social work: an
introduction to contemporary practice. [e-book] Harlow, Pearson Education Limited.
Available from: Mylibrary [Accessed 20 January 2015].
12
13