Integrating Complexity Theory and Social Work Practice; a Commentary on Fish and Hardy (2015)
COMMENTARY
Integrating complexity theory and social work practice; a commentary on Fish and Hardy (2015)
Aaron Pycroft a and Mike Wolf-Branigin b
A Institute of Criminal Justice Studies, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK; b Department of Social Work, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA
ABSTRACT
This is a commentary on Fish and Hardy’s paper on the application of complexity theory to social work practice and which raises some important questions about the relevance and ultimate efficacy of complexity theory within social work. We address some of the issues raised and argue that (1) complexity is but the latest iteration of the tradition of systems thinking in social work, and that the theory and practice of social work flourishes when it is open to a wide range of perspectives (2) their paper would have been strengthened by utilising a complex adaptive systems paradigm to provide greater clarity on the differences between complicated and complex, and the nature of non-linearity (3) this paradigm then helps us to understand the relationship between the parts and the whole and the necessity of understanding through reflective practice the context of decision-making and the processes that enhance or diminish their effectiveness. We conclude that it is at the level of the team that reflective practice becomes more significant and effective in working with complexity.
Introduction
This commentary is a response to Fish and Hardy’s (Fish and Hardy 2015) promising approach to the discussion of complexity theory in social work practice. Their paper provides a detailed literature review concerning the application of complexity to social work and the key debates therein. The main focus of their approach is on the work of Eileen Munro (e.g. Munro 2005) and her attempts to address issues of judgement making, both procedural and intuitive in the complexity of social work practice; they develop a reflexive model of practice but ultimately question the usefulness of complexity to inform practice and discuss the ‘difficulties of operationalizing abstract theory’ (111). The purposes of this commentary are to constructively critique their paper and to extend and strengthen the discussion of this promising, important, and emerging paradigm through arguing that (1) complexity is but the latest iteration of the tradition of systems thinking in social work, and that the theory and practice of social work flourishes when it is open to a wide range of perspectives (2) their paper would have been strengthened by utilising a complex adaptive systems (CAS) paradigm to provide greater clarity on the differences between complicated and complex, and the nature of non-linearity (3) this paradigm then helps us to understand the relationship between the parts (social worker, service user, etc.) and the whole (team, organisation, etc.) and the necessity of understanding through reflective practice the context of decision-making and the processes that enhance or diminish their effectiveness.
Complexity as the latest iteration of systems thinking in social work
Because social workers apply theories from various disciplines into our practices, we have benefitted from the continual improvement of undergirding theoretical foundations. For several decades social work utilised a person-in-environment perspective, typically operationalised through applying ecosystems theory. While ecosystems theory provided benefits associated with identifying and using influences beyond an individual’s personal sphere, and toward a theoretical approach focusing
on the interconnectedness of client systems and surrounding environments, the iterative use of feedback loops lacked. This led many (including Munro) to consider complexity theory as the next version of applicable systems thought as it reflects the continually changing needs and environments of clients (Israel and Wolf-Branigin 2011). Complexity assumes that relationships do not need to be linear; a given input does not necessarily result in a given output and as social workers apply complexity theory, they begin to incorporate interdisciplinary perspectives including quantitative
approaches: Agent-based modelling has a potential role through pattern recognition and creating simulated environments in which experiments can be conducted. This may include using big data (Pentland 2014; Couldry and Powell 2014) for identifying emerging trends and forecasting of effects resulting from different policy options; mathematics (chaos, graph, and network theories), physics, evolutionary theory, ecological thinking, and computational science.. Qualitative approaches have developed sociological perspectives grounded in intersectionality and understanding the social determinants of health (see McPherson and McGibbon 2014) and constructivist approaches within complexity argue for the analogy of neural networks to understand human information flows and relationships rather than deterministic rules (see Cilliers 1998). As with the traditionally defined fault lines in social science epistemology quantitative complexity is interested in size and effect and qualitative complexity in depth and meaning; however they are not mutually exclusive, with for example Morin (2005) arguing for the necessity of double-think, and higher order solutions within complexity itself. Overall we would argue that complexity theory helps us in the tradition of social science/social theory to model the world around us, but develops our understanding of the dynamic, evolving, embedded and stratified nature of reality. This necessitates an utilisation and development of mental models in the form of reflective practice, to allow for the integration of theory and practice.
Using complex adaptive systems as a frame of reference
Our starting point for a discussion of reflection is the need for a clear statement on the nature of complexity which we think is under developed in Fish and Hardy’s paper. Despite differences in ontological, epistemological and methodological approaches to complexity theory (as highlighted by Fish and Hardy), the concept of CAS has a significant degree of consensus about definition from across disciplines both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ and within complexity itself from positivist, to post positivist
to post-modern (see Morcol 2012; Pentland 2014). CAS have defining features of which energy (dynamism) is the key analogy. By using the CAS paradigm this would have given the paper more clarity on the differences between complicated and complex, and greater analysis of the nature of non-linearity; systems made up of multiple elements are more than the sum of their parts; to be complex the interaction
between elements needs to be dynamic and change over time; those elements can be loosely or strongly connected and still have a whole system effect; the non-linearity is unpredictable and is not proportionate to inputs into the system; they are systems which are open to their environments and embedded within other systems, hence it is not possible to know the boundaries of the system; these systems experience ‘order for free’ (Kauffman 1993) in that they self organise, allowing them to evolve, adapt and develop; self-organisation gives rise to emergent properties but which in themselves cannot be reduced to their component parts; complex systems have a history, evolve through time and are sensitive to initial conditions (small changes in the energy source for the system). Fish and Hardy are challenged by the infinite complexity of any social work judgement and find themselves disabled
by it. We argue that complexity is to be embraced rather than a problem to be solved (because of its ontological reality it is insoluble) and so the interactions (outcomes) of ‘the mundane realities’ (109) become the context from which decisions emerge. They are right that this challenges reductionism which is precisely why we have to look to higher order (whole systems) solutions, from the bottom up rather than the top down.
The use of reflective practice
Fish and Hardy rightly eschew grand theorising by arguing that ‘the value of any theory…in practice-based disciplines…rests in the extent to which it enables practitioners to understand and solve actual problems’ (106) and go onto to question the practical value of complexity theory and the use of metaphor and analogy (110). They argue that complexity theory has its uses in explaining the difficulties of social work but offers few prescriptions, or adds little that is not already addressed by for
example Gidden's (1984) work on structure and agency. We would argue that complexity significantly enhances existing methodologies and takes them in new and exciting directions. The advancement of knowledge across the physical and social sciences, as well as practice based disciplines are dependent upon the use of metaphor and mental models to solve problems; reflective practice is just such an
example. The key lesson from complexity is that our mental modelling of the world around us needs to be as dynamic as the phenomena that we are studying, and that we are always a part of the system that we are observing – there is no neutral observer status. The strength rather than the weakness of this perspective is argued by McDermott as ‘it is at the level of practice/intervention (emphasis in the original)
that the interconnectedness and interdependency of systems are revealed with particular clarity, confronting practitioners with the reality of what complexity is and means…’ (McDermott 2014, 181). At the heart of the discussions of what is procedural and what is judgemental is a familiar organisational paradox that policy makers have to grapple with, in that organisations that are procedurally driven lose dynamism and creativity (at the team and practitioner level), and that looser controls
may encourage creativity but lose accountability and consistency. Within modern multi agency and interdisciplinary models of service delivery (enshrined in an ethos of new public management) which increase complexity, the complexity cannot be ignored. It is our contention that in practice that that the role of the team becomes more significant. The team is a reasonable level of abstraction from the system that is able to consider the relationships between the whole and the parts in more detail,
address the problem of boundary setting, address professional values and the ways in which problems are constructed and understood, work with uncertainty and crucially harness difference to enhance collaboration (see Hadorn et al. 2010 cited in McDermott 2014) and improve individual judgement making.
Conclusion
Social work has traditionally drawn upon a range of perspectives from applied social science and also social theory. The growing use of complexity theory provides a valuable framework for organising practice and research methods and integrating some of these approaches; therefore the practitioners and researchers benefit from understanding the continuum of methods available to them. Fish and Hardy have offered an important contribution to this debate at the level of social work practice and we suggest that a clearer focus on CAS and reflective practice at the team level enables social workers to improve their practice.
References
Cilliers, Paul. 1998. Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems. London: Routledge.
Couldry, Nick, and Alison Powell. 2014. “Big Data from the Bottom Up.” Big Data & Society 1 (5): 1–5. doi:10.1177/2053951714539277.
Fish, Sheila, and Mark Hardy. 2015. “Complex Issues, Complex Solutions: Applying Complexity Theory in Social Work Practice.” Nordic Social Work Research 5 (sup1): 98–114. doi:10.1080/2156857X.2015.1065902.
Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Israel, Nathaniel, and Wolf-Branigin Mike. 2011. “Nonlinearity in Social Service Evaluation: A Primer on Agent-based Modeling.” Social Work Research 35 (1): 20–24.
Kauffman, Stuart. 1993. The Origins of Order: Self-organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McDermott, Fiona. 2014. “Complexity Theory, Trans-disciplinary Working and Reflective Practice.” In Applying Complexity Theory, edited by Aaron Pycroft and Clemens Bartollas, 181–198. Bristol: Policy Press.
McPherson, Charmaine and McGibbon, Elizabeth. 2014. “Intersecting Contexts of Oppression within Complex Public Systems.” In Applying Complexity Theory, edited by Aaron Pycroft, and Clemens Bartollas, 159–180 Bristol: Policy Press.
Morcol, Goktug. 2012. A Complexity Theory for Public Policy. New York: Routledge.
Morin, Edgar. 2005. “Restricted Complexity, General Complexity’. Paper presented at the Colloquium “ Intelligence de la complexite: epistemologie et pragmatique, Cerisy-La-Salle, France, 26 June.
Munro, Eileen. 2005. “Improving Practice: Child Protection as a Systems Problem.” Child and Youth Services Review 26 (9): 873–883.
Pentland, Alex. 2014. Social Physics: How Good Ideas Spread- the Lessons from a New Science. New York: Penguin.
Pycroft, Aaron. 2014. “Complexity Theory: An Overview.” In Applying Complexity Theory, edited by Aaron Pycroft and Clemens Bartollas, 15–38. Bristol: Policy Press.