Critical Social Work

School of Social Work

University of Windsor
401 Sunset Avenue
Windsor, Ont.
Canada N9B 3P4
Email: cswedit@uwindsor.ca

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information can be found
at: http://uwindsor.ca/criticalsocialwork

Link to article:
http://www.uwindsor.ca/criticalsocialwork/beginning-at-the-beginning-an-exploration-of-
critical-social-work

Critical Social Work, 2012 Vol. 13, o. 1

 67
Campbell & Baikie

Beginning at the Beginning: An

Exploration of Critical Social Work
Critical Social Work 13(1)
Carolyn Campbell 1 and Gail Baikie 1
1
Dalhousie University

Abstract

Recognizing the complexities of critical social work the authors use a metaphor of a traffic circle
to survey the fundamental values, assumptions, theories, concepts, principles, and practices of
critical social work. They then consider the relationship among ‘mainstream’, critical, and other
marginalized social work perspectives. A subsequent exploration of the challenges and
possibilities of critical practice is followed by a reflection on the processes of teaching and
learning critical social work. The article does not presume a level of pre-existing social work
knowledge or experience on the part of the reader and is therefore accessible and useful for
scholars, teachers, students, and practitioners who are new to critical social work.

KEYWORDS: Critical social work; social work education; practice fundamentals

Critical Social Work: Beginning at the Beginning

Critical hope...refers to hopeful action that is based on the critical analysis of a situation
and the recognition that wishing alone is not sufficient to make change. It involves an
understanding of the forces that produce injustice and an imagining of what the world without
these forces, and without the injustice, might look like (James, Este, Bernard, Benjamin, Lloyd,
& Turner, 2010, p. 27)

We are practitioners and educators who remain critically hopeful that social workers, by
understanding and adopting critical social work perspectives and practices, will contribute
individually and collectively to the creation of a socially just world. We have embraced the task
of teaching critical social work to beginning students and practitioners, but our enthusiasm and
excitement is often in sharp contrast with the frustration and confusion expressed by learners as
they attempt to navigate through the complexities of ‘what is’ and ‘how to do’ critical social
work.

One source of confusion is the number and variation of critical social work perspectives
(Hick & Pozzuto, 2005). The different theoretical influences and interpretations result in a

Critical Social Work, 2012 Vol. 13, No. 1

 68
Campbell & Baikie

myriad of internal contradictions and debates that frustrate students seeking a clear and
consistent definition.

A second source of confusion is that previously marginalized and distinct social work
perspectives, including Afro-centric and Aboriginal Social Work, are often portrayed alongside
critical social work and are mistakenly assumed to belong within the same container of thought
and action. Sorting out the nuances of these distinctions and similarities is difficult.

A third, and perhaps most major source of confusion, is the result of a significant gap in
the literature. While there are many excellent articles and texts that explore the origins,
evolution, and uniqueness of critical social work (Adams, Dominelli, & Payne, 2009; Allan,
2003; Allan, Pease, & Briskman, 2003; Baines, 2007; Campbell, 2003; Carniol, 2005;
Dominelli, 2002; Fook, 2002; Healy, 2005; Hick & Pozzuto, 2005; Hick, Fook, & Pozzuto,
2005; Leonard, 2001; Mullaly, 2007) we have been unable to locate a concise introductory
explanation that does not presume some level of pre-existing social work knowledge or
experience.

Developed as a result of our experiences as social work educators and in response to

common and reoccurring questions from learners, this paper offers a foundational article for
beginning learners. In our attempt to simplify the complexity of critical social work we risk
neglecting important distinctions, relying on over-generalizations, and appearing to reduce
practice to a series of platitudes and lists. We explicitly accept these risks because our priority is
to speak directly to those beginning students and practitioners who earnestly seek to understand
critical social work.

We begin with some basic directions for reading this article and then introduce readers to
the traffic circle metaphor that frames the paper. After an initial detour to consider the meaning
of the words ‘critical’ and ‘political’, we direct you through a more detailed journey. This
provides an orientation to the components of the critical social work perspective. We consider
how critical social work relates to other practice perspectives and highlight some challenges of
and possibilities for critical practice and, finally, we briefly comment on the processes involved
in teaching and learning critical social work.

Some Basic Directions

• Always remember that critical social work is dynamic and robust: one introductory paper
cannot cover everything but, by introducing some central components this paper will
serve as a foundational framework for ongoing study.
• Do not assume that this paper represents the one and only ‘truth’ about critical social
work: not all scholars will agree with everything we have written. You will soon learn
that there are multiple interpretations, and therefore multiple representations, of critical
social work.
• You may not have previously been exposed to the critically reflective thinking process
that is central to critical social work. A critically reflective thinking process enables you

Critical Social Work, 2012 Vol. 13, No. 1

 69
Campbell & Baikie

to question and unlearn old thinking habits and opens up alternative ways of interpreting
and acting on social problems and structures.
• Educational processes (pedagogy) that are congruent with critical social work may be
unfamiliar and initially uncomfortable as they require active engagement from learners:
mentally, emotionally, spiritually, and physically. You cannot be passive consumers of
knowledge within a critical social work classroom.
• Most beginning learners seek certainty and consistency: you want to learn the ‘right’ way
to be a ‘good’ social worker. However, critical social work, like life in general, is often
contradictory, complex, disconcerting, and therefore requires emotional labour. Your
journey will be enriched through finding ‘comfort with discomfort’ and then calmness in
the midst of inconsistency and uncertainty.
• Learning should not be an isolating experience: seek out and engage with others as you
explore the intricacies and complexities of this intriguing social work perspective. We
remain grateful to the many practice mentors and theorists who have invested in our
journey.
• Recognize that each of us forges our own unique path. For instance, we (the authors)
came to critical social work from very different paths – Carolyn as a feminist activist in
south-eastern Canada and Gail as an Aboriginal social worker from northern Canada.
Regardless, our vision of a better world is shared and we join many others on this journey
of critically engaged hope.
• You do not have to understand everything in this paper. There will be twists and turns:
just when you think you understand a given idea, concept or theory, some new
information will call that understanding into question. You are encouraged to approach
your studies in a spirit of exploration and remember that:

It is not the goal of critical social work to discover or establish the finite answers
for ‘correct’ social work theory or practice. Rather, the goal of critical social work
is to identify the multiple possibilities of the present in order to contribute to the
creation of a more just and satisfying social world (Hick & Pozzuto, 2005, p. xi).

The Journey Called Critical Social Work

Our Departure Point: Understanding ‘Perspective’

A perspective can be simply understood as an outlook (Schein, 2003) or narrative map

(Clark, 1995) from which one views, interprets, and understands the various phenomena of
everyday life. Clark (1995) describes this narrative map as “the consciousness platform on which
we act, through which we ‘know who we are’. It is shared in a greater or lesser degree with those
around us, but is seldom discussed outright” (p. 65). Building upon Clark’s analogy we use the
metaphor of a traffic circle to illustrate the components of any perspective. Our traffic circle has
six components, or entry routes (see Figure 1).

Critical Social Work, 2012 Vol. 13, No. 1

 70
Campbell & Baikie

Figure 1

A Short Detour

Before beginning our journey around the traffic circle let us take a short detour to
consider the words ‘critical’ and ‘political’. Dictionary definitions of the word critical include (1)
not pleased; saying that someone or something is bad or wrong (2) giving opinions or judgments
on books, plays etc. (3) important and (4) serious (Cambridge, 2009). None of these definitions
are particularly relevant to critical social work and it is important to let go of these commonly
understood meanings of the word ‘critical’.

So what does critical mean when used in the context of critical social work? Critical
social work theorists originally adopted the term from critical theory, a sociological and
philosophical theory that evolved from the so-called ‘Frankfurt School’ of German social
thinkers. We will draw on this body of thought but know that critical social work perspectives
are “no longer strictly aligned with critical theory” (Hick & Pozzuto 2005, p. xi).

Two themes within critical theory are particularly relevant to understanding the word
critical when used as an adjective to describe social work. First, critical theorists assert that the
role of theory is to help us move beyond understanding and explaining society to critiquing and
changing society. Critical social workers are therefore committed to understanding,
critiquing and transforming the profession of social work and the unjust nature of society.

Second, critical theorists assert that all social relationships, whether at micro, meso or
macro levels, are political. The common understanding of the word political, that evokes images
of political parties, elections, and governments, is not very useful on our journey. In the context
of critical theory, to politicize something or someone “…is to introduce the idea that everything
has political elements: that is, nothing is neutral, everything involves struggle over power,
resources and affirming identities” (Baines, 2007, p.51). Critical social workers therefore

Critical Social Work, 2012 Vol. 13, No. 1

 71
Campbell & Baikie

include an analysis of power and understand social relationships as both personal and
political: you will become familiar with the phrase “the personal is political”.

As you begin the journey through the traffic circle, we ask that you put aside the popular
meanings of the words ‘critical’ and ‘political’ and take on very different meanings: meanings
that incorporate ideas of social identity, oppression, domination, privilege, power, justice,
creativity, and change. We also ask you to keep in mind that our ‘journey’ is predominately
situated within the meta–perspective that is often termed a ‘Euro-western worldview’. Other
societies and cultures have quite different meta-perspectives that give rise to different ways of
thinking about and knowing the world. Let us now move to a more detailed consideration of each
of the entry routes and the specific components of a critical social work perspective.
3avigating the Traffic Circle

Entry Route 1: Assumptions. Assumptions are foundational ideas or beliefs about how
the world works. Jackson (2008) distinguishes between primary assumptions and secondary
assumptions. He explains that primary assumptions are typically unquestioned taken-for-granted
‘truths’ that we are not even aware of until they are specifically surfaced and considered. Some
of these primary assumptions deal with significant philosophical ideas. Secondary assumptions
are additional layers of beliefs that are rooted in, and thereby consistent with, the underlying set
of primary assumptions. Secondary assumptions are then legitimated by society’s broad-based
acceptance of the primary assumptions. Even though we are frequently unaware of our
assumptions they are fundamental to our understanding of the world.

Primary assumptions:

Axiology explores questions about values: what is

good/right/wrong/moral/immoral?

Epistemology explores questions of knowledge: how do we ‘know’ what we
know? What is true; what is false?

Ontology explores questions about reality: what is real; how does reality change?

Cosmology explores questions about the nature of the universe and the place of
all life within the universe?

Praxeology explores questions about action: how should and how do we behave?

Spiritual: explores questions about the nature of spirit and faith and how we make
meaning in our lives (Vidal, 2007).

Secondary assumptions:

Human Nature: Do humans have a fundamental nature? Is it good, bad, a

mixture? What is the role of nature/nurture?

Social Relationships: Are we collective or individualistic beings? Do we act from
self-interest or from considerations of the common good? What does it mean to
‘help’ another?

Nature: Are we meant to subjugate and control nature, to live in harmony with
nature, to accept the power of nature?

Critical Social Work, 2012 Vol. 13, No. 1

 72
Campbell & Baikie

Political: What are the nature of societies, economies, systems and institutions?
What is the relationship and interconnection between individuals and societies,
economies, systems and institutions? Whose needs are served by these systems
and institutions?

Change: How does change happen? What is the role and possibility of individual
and/or collective action in promoting change?

Temporal: What is the nature of time? Should we focus on the past, the present,
the future (Ibrahim & Owen, 1994)?

Assumptions of critical social work. The foundational assumptions of critical social work
incorporate a mix of modernist (including anti-colonial), post structuralist, post-colonial, and
postmodernist thought. While articulating the distinctions among these various bodies of thought
is beyond the introductory scope of this paper, it is important to know that critical social work is
in a transitional phase whereby fundamental assumptions are being challenged and re-
conceptualized by diverse schools of thought (Kincheloe & MacLaren, 2000). However there are
some generalizations or commonalities that would be accepted by most critical social workers.

Epistemologically, knowledge is not understood to be ‘out there’ waiting to be

discovered. Knowledge is “not simply a reflection of an inert world” (Agger, 1998, p. 4) but is
actively and socially constructed and interpreted. Therefore objectivity is a myth and ‘truth’ is
determined by those who have the power to define a particular interpretation of knowledge as the
‘correct’ interpretation.

Not surprisingly then, critical social workers do not ascribe to the belief that there is one
reality that is the same for everyone. Rather our individual experiences and how we understand
these experiences depend on where and how we are situated socially, culturally and politically.

Critical social work grew from a modernist, materialist perspective which means that it
initially focused in the concrete realities of life and frequently neglected spiritual concerns.
However, this is changing as more and more critical social workers are exploring spiritual
questions (Damaianakis, 2006; Graham, Coholic, & Coates, 2006). Consistent with the above
ontological and epistemological assumptions, most critical social workers recognize and embrace
diverse and multiple ways of ‘meaning making’. Similarly, critical social workers embrace
cosmological assumptions that challenge the alleged superiority of humans and suggest that
social work has a role to play in helping human beings learn to live in harmony with nature
(Mary, 2008; Zapf, 2009).

Critical social workers understand human nature to be fluid and malleable and therefore
susceptible to multiple influences. Accordingly, social relationships are understood as being
crucial in the development of both individual and collective identities: by this we mean that our
individual identities (how we see ourselves) are significantly influenced by our social positioning
and identities (how others see us). The assignment of social identities (the most commonly
discussed are those rooted in race, culture, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion,
ability, and class) has a tangible reality in a person’s day to day life and leads to differential and
intersecting experiences of oppression, domination and privilege. However critical social

Critical Social Work, 2012 Vol. 13, No. 1

 73
Campbell & Baikie

workers do not accept that these experiences pre-determine who a person is: on the contrary,
humans are understood to be active participants in shaping their lives and societies.

Critical social workers hold a number of political assumptions, many related to the
existence and transformation of injustice. Critical social workers believe that injustice exists, has
current and historical manifestations, impacts individuals, families, communities, and societies,
influences interpersonal relationships, can be resisted and transformed, and has been both re-
enforced and transformed by social work and social care practices.

Finally, critical social workers assume “that a better social world is possible and that the
achievement of a better social world requires a qualitative change in current social relations”
(Hick & Pozzuto, 2005, p. xi). They assume that social workers have a responsibility to engage
in the difficult and creative work of imagining and building a better social world.

Entry Route 2: Values. Values are what a person, group, or culture considers important.
Values are frequently intangible but give a sense of what is esteemed, cherished and considered
to be worth preserving and acting upon. The study of values is referred to as axiology, which
comes from two Greek words: ‘axios’ meaning ‘worthy’ and ‘logos’ meaning ‘science’. Values
are intimately linked to collective assumptions and challenging a person’s values often evokes
intense emotional responses and resistance.

Values of critical social work. Social work is a ‘normative’ profession: this means that
values, as well as knowledge, influence our analysis and decision-making. Critical social work is
grounded in values of equity and equality, community, inclusiveness, democracy, celebration of
diversity and difference, human rights, social justice, sustainability, harmony, cooperation,
interdependence, and personal and social transformation. Since these values are also espoused by
many ‘non critical’ members of society we ask you to remember that it is situating these values
in the context of the previous assumptions that make them ‘critical’.

Entry Route 3: Theories. Theories are ‘speculative’ (Jackson, 2008) ways of describing,
explaining, and making meaning of the events in our lives. For example, the theory of evolution
is a way of explaining the origins of, and changes in, populations of biological organisms. Like
any theory, this explanation is not universally accepted; there are other theories or ways of
explaining the origins of life. Theories are not developed or supported in isolation from
fundamental assumptions and values. It is unlikely that one whose cosmological assumption is
that God created human beings in seven days would accept the theory of evolution as a
legitimate way of explaining the origins of life.

Theories of critical social work. Social work is primarily concerned with theories that
seek to explain and influence the thoughts, feelings, and actions of human beings and the
relationships of humans to each other and to societal institutions. An exploration of social work
theory reveals the influence of multiple theoretical traditions including biomedical,
psychological, sociological, anthropological, political, and educational. While you will explore
many of these traditions as a part of your social work education, the theoretical foundations of
critical social work primarily rest on the last four of these traditions: sociological,
anthropological, political, and educational. These theoretical traditions are more consistent with

Critical Social Work, 2012 Vol. 13, No. 1

 74
Campbell & Baikie

critical social work’s desire to both critique and transform society as opposed to just describing
and explaining life events. In addition, these traditions move beyond considerations of individual
behaviour to explore the complex relationship between the structures of society and individual
consciousness, a focus that is not as prevalent in biomedical and psychological theoretical
traditions.

Entry Route 4: Concepts. Concepts are the building blocks of theory. To understand
any given theory we need to understand the concepts that are central to that theory. Using the
above example, to understand the theory of evolution we would need to understand concepts like
natural selection, genetics, mutations, and adaptation.

Concepts of critical social work. The many, many conceptual building blocks of
sociological, anthropological, political, and educational theories are significant to critical social
work. For the purposes of this paper we just list some of these concepts, but rest assured that
you will learn more about them throughout the course of your studies. These concepts include:
oppression, domination, privilege, individual and social identity, individualization, justice and
injustice, human rights, social location or social positioning, power, language, discourse,
dialogue and dialogical relationships, history, difference and diversity, inclusion and exclusion,
marginalization, complexity, contradiction, critically reflective analysis, helping, consciousness
raising, community, deconstruction and reconstruction, context, meaning, and possibility.

Entry Route 5: Principles. Principles are brief, clear statements that provide people
general guidance and direction.

Principles of critical social work. Practitioners who embrace a critical social work
perspective strive to:

Achieve congruency among their assumptions, values, theories, concepts,

principles, and practices.

Politicize their work by linking personal/private issues to public/political
conditions. In so doing, they reframe accepted and dominant definitions of social
problems.

Not dismiss standardized knowledge and practices but understand the contextual
nature of practice and vary their actions, including the use of power, in relation to
context. This frequently means shifting one’s practice focus from the ‘client’ to
the problematic ‘context’.

Work at multiple levels: social work includes direct working with individuals,
families and communities but it also includes working at policy, research, and
advocacy levels.

Center the voices and experiences of those who are traditionally marginalized.

Work co-operatively and collectively in ways that value the knowledge and
experience of service users and communities.

Attend to all components of life: material, affective, cognitive, and spiritual.

Establish and maintain ethical relationships that respect the uniqueness of
individuals, groups, and communities.

Work comfortably and competently in the midst of contradiction and uncertainty.

Critical Social Work, 2012 Vol. 13, No. 1

 75
Campbell & Baikie

Embrace and practice critical reflexivity.

Entry Route 6: Practices. Practices are the actual actions people engage in during their
day to day lives.

Practices of critical social work. It is impossible in one paper to describe the many, many
practices and related skills of critical social work and to distinguish them from other practice
perspectives. Many critical practitioners use skills that are also used by workers who adopt
other perspectives. We believe that such generalist skills, if grounded in critical social work
assumptions and values, can be useful in supporting and advancing the goals of critical social
work. At the same time some generalist skills may be inappropriate within a critical social
work perspective.

Although they use the word ‘processes’ instead of practices Finn and Jacobson (2008)
provide a useful categorization that can serve as a beginning introduction to critical practice. The
four core inter- connected processes (practice clusters) as presented by Finn and Jacobson are

1. Engagement: interpersonal communication, anticipatory empathy, observation,

noticing and bearing witness, body consciousness, listening, dialogue,
understanding and respecting resistance, group work, popular education,
honouring difference.
2. Teaching and Learning: co-learning, systematic inquiry, “diagnosis” and analysis,
mutual aid, open space technology, collecting and assessing generative themes,
community mapping, organizational knowledge, identifying resources and
supports, setting a teaching and learning climate, development of critical
awareness, assessment.
3. Action and Accompaniment: challenging oppression and creating contexts of
support, planning, supporting, decision making, mobilizing resources, motivating
participants, challenging barriers, following through in creating change,
addressing anger and transforming conflict, critical education, building coalitions,
policy analysis, advocacy.
4. Evaluation, Critical Reflection, and Celebration: participatory evaluation,
designing evaluation tools and processes, initiating, sustaining, and enriching
critical reflection, recognizing success, appreciating contributions, and relishing
learning, honouring ritual and play, finding joy and beauty in the work.

By now we have made our way completely around the traffic circle. While we started our
journey at ‘Assumptions’, as you learn about critical social work you will enter from different
locations, depending upon the material you are studying. For example, the School where we
teach has one course that focuses primarily on assumptions and values; another one focuses
primarily on theories and concepts; and a third on principles and practices.

How Does Critical Social Work Relate To Other Practice Perspectives?

As you learn about the historical evolution of critical social work (and its predecessors
like radical, feminist, anti- racist, structural, anti-oppressive perspectives) it will become clear

Critical Social Work, 2012 Vol. 13, No. 1

 76
Campbell & Baikie

that it has been, and continues to be, somewhat on the margins of more dominant, Euro-
American perspectives. Baines (2007) uses the term ‘mainstream social work’ to describe these
perspectives and says:

Although often claiming the opposite, mainstream social work tends to view social
problems in a depoliticized way that emphasizes individual shortcomings, pathology and
inadequacy. Interventions are aimed largely at the individual with little or no analysis of
or intent to challenge power, structures, social relations, culture or economic forces (p. 4).

Baines goes on to say that mainstream social work takes

… politics and political awareness out of issues in order to control the issues and those
seeking to make social change. … In social work, issues are often depoliticized by
defining them as individual shortcomings, medical or psychiatric diagnoses, criminal
activities or other forms of deviance, and/or by using existing bureaucratic
understandings of social problems and their solutions (2007, p. 5).

The most significant thing to remember at this point in your studies is that critical social
work and mainstream social work are informed by some fundamentally different assumptions,
especially ontological, epistemological, and political assumptions.

Some other social work perspectives, such as Afri-centric, Aboriginal, and Queer, are
also marginalized in relation to mainstream social work. Critical social work has been enriched
by the insights of these perspectives, particularly by an analysis of the complex processes of
colonialism, de-colonization, and de-colonialism (Lang, 2005). In turn, the emergence and
growth of critical social work has, to some degree, facilitated the ‘space’ for other perspectives
to claim their place as distinct cultural models of social work. While all of these perspectives
share a commitment to co-creating a just society, it would be a mistake to assume they are the
same. Again, some are informed by fundamentally different assumptions than critical social
work.

As a beginning student or practitioner you may find it difficult to identify the differences
between various marginalized approaches and mainstream social work. An in-depth analysis of
these differences is not possible within this introductory paper but please accept that there are
many valid reasons for your struggle.

First, without knowledge of, or experience in, mainstream social work practice you may
find it difficult to comprehend the real uniqueness of the various marginalized perspectives,
including critical social work. Second, mainstream social work has a stated commitment to social
justice and equity that, on the surface, appears to be consistent with the aims of the marginalized
perspectives. For example, the Canadian Association of Social Workers (2008) states that “the
global vision of social work is a world consistently working toward social justice and well-being
for all citizens” (p. 2). It is only though a more detailed study of all components of each
perspective that you will be able to distinguish sometimes subtle qualitative differences.

Critical Social Work, 2012 Vol. 13, No. 1

 77
Campbell & Baikie

Third, the use of shared words and images is not always indicative of shared perspectives.
For example, while the following quote from the vision statement of the Nova Scotia Association
of Social Workers (n.d.) uses similar language, it is our informed analysis that the work of this
Association is not congruent with a critical social work perspective as we have outlined it here.

…following from this are a focus on empowerment and a critical perspective on social,
health and economic policy that makes clear our humanitarian mandate. Active support
of an anti-oppressive framework for social work practice reinforces our commitment to
diversity (home page).

Fourth, the actual work done by critical social workers can, on the surface, resemble the
work done by mainstream social workers. But the practice is not the same: a more nuanced
examination shows that there are subtle, but fundamental, differences that arise primarily from
differences in fundamental assumptions.

Challenges and Possibilities

We earlier suggested that the ideal situation is when all components of a perspective are
congruent. However, human beings, and the structures, institutions, and cultures we create, are
rarely ideal or congruent. Social work theory and practice is no exception: it is fraught with
contradiction, inconsistencies, and incongruence. It is important that we all become skilled at
recognizing and working within these contradictions in the best interests of our service users.

The privileging of mainstream perspectives over those of critical social work and other
marginalized perspectives gives rise to a common question from beginning practitioners: “How
can I possibly practice critical social work in an environment that either overtly or covertly
practices on the basis of very different perspectives?” Given the changing relationship between
social work and the state, processes of globalization, economic conditions, and the growth in
managerial approaches to practice, this is a valid and pressing question.

Healy (2005) and Fook (2002) both advocate the idea of ‘contextual practice’ as one
means of addressing this dilemma. Healy asserts that an essential element of critical social work
is analyzing and understanding institutional context.

The deeply contextual nature of social work differentiates it from other professions. Our
professional practice foundations – our knowledge, purpose and skill bases – are
substantially constructed in, and through, the environments in which we work. For this
reason, enhancing our capacity to understand, analyze and respond to our institutional
contexts must be an integral part of our frameworks for professional practice. Through
understanding our context, we can both recognize how our practice is shaped by context
and how we might act as agents of change both within, and in relation to, our context
(2005, p. 4).

Similarly, when asking if it is possible to bring “about social justice in an unjust

environment” (Fook, 2002, p. 161). Fook (2002) claims that such a question implies that our
social work practice is determined by the organizational context in which we work. She rejects

Critical Social Work, 2012 Vol. 13, No. 1

 78
Campbell & Baikie

this implication, asserting that if practice is truly contextual, there is no longer an opposition
between practice and environment. She suggests that, if we experience our environment as
hostile, then part of our work is changing that environment.

Another common question is “but why do I have to use one perspective all the time?”
Why can I not apply a mainstream perspective in one case situation and apply a critical
perspective in a different situation?” We hope by now you can identify the misunderstanding
embedded in these questions. To re-iterate, critical social work is not a set of theories that one
‘applies’. A critical social work perspective is better understood as a way of being, or as a world
view, that is “a mental model of reality — a framework of ideas & attitudes about the world,
ourselves, and life, a comprehensive system of beliefs” (Rusbult, n.d., home page). A world view
is not something that you can ‘apply’ in one situation and not in another. Rather it frames how
you explain, understand, and make meaning of any situation.

Teaching and Learning Critical Social Work

Many critical social work educators are informed by pedagogical assumptions that give
rise to teaching principles and practices that may differ from your previous university
experiences and may not conform to your ideas of university education and professional training.
Critical education, sometimes called transformative education, is more than a cognitive process;
it is also an emotional and spiritual process that calls for active dialogical engagement among
students and teachers (Campbell, 2002, 2003). Many critical educators strive to facilitate
learning environments that privilege: the active creation of collective knowledge over the passive
giving and receiving of pre-determined knowledge; contradiction over certainty; surfacing
assumptions over learning ‘the facts’; searching for understanding over finding the truth;
exploring questions over finding answers; staying with discomfort over seeking comfort;
dialoguing over debating; working collaboratively over working competitively (Campbell &
Baikie, 2010). Such education can be both exhilarating and destabilizing so creating mutually
supportive relationships with your instructors and fellow students is very important.

Conclusion

As you work with the complexities of critical social work practice remember that it is not
an ‘either/ or’ situation: a practitioner is not a ‘mainstream social worker’ or ‘a critical social
worker’. We can work in ‘mainstream’ contexts with a critical social work perspective. There are
multiple possibilities for promoting social justice, exploiting critical possibilities, and politicizing
practice in every work context.

As you study critical social work you may find that your own perspective on life and
practice differs from the critical perspective we have explored here. If this is the case, remember
that engaging in processes of deconstructing and reconstructing one’s own perspective, whatever
that may be, is part of being an effective social work practitioner. This educational process of
learning and unlearning takes time, demands cognitive and emotional investment, entails risk, is
often circular and contradictory, but it is also rewarding, exciting and energizing. Critical social
work provides us with the hope for, and progress towards, a changed social world for the
wellbeing of all. May you enjoy and celebrate your journey as much as we do ours.

Critical Social Work, 2012 Vol. 13, No. 1

 79
Campbell & Baikie

References

Adams, R., Dominelli, L., & Payne, M. (Eds.). (2009). Critical practice in social work (2nd ed.).
Houndmills, UK: Macmillan Publishers.

Agger, B. (1998). Critical social work theories: An introduction. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Allan, J. (2003). Practising critical social work. In J. Allan, B. Pease, & L. Briskman (Eds.),
Critical social work: An introduction to theories and practices (pp. 52- 72). Crows Nest,
AU: Allen and Unwin.

Allan, J., Pease, B., & Briskman, L. (Eds.). (2003). Critical social work: An introduction to
theories and practices. Crows Nest, AU: Allen and Unwin.

Baines, D. (Ed). (2007). Doing anti-oppressive practice: Building transformation politicized

social work. Black Point, NS: Fernwood Publishing.

Cambridge Dictionaries On line. (2009). Critical. Retrieved from

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?searchword=critical+&x=0&y=0

Campbell, C. (2002). The search for congruency: Developing strategies for anti-oppressive social
work pedagogy. Canadian Social Work Review, 19(1), 25-42.

Campbell, C. (2003). Principles and practices of anti-oppressive pedagogy as represented by Dr.

Terri Swice. In W. Shera (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on anti-oppressive practice (pp.
393-411). Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars Press.

Campbell, C. & Baikie G. (2010). SLWK2222: Advancing social justice course outline.
Unpublished manuscript, School of Social Work, Dalhousie University. School of Social
Work, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.

Canadian Association of Social Workers. (2008). Social work scope of practice. Retrieved from
http://www.casw-acts.ca

Carniol, B. (2005). Case critical: Social services and social justice in Canada (5th ed.). Toronto,
ON: Between the Lines.

Clark, M. (1995). Changes in Euro-American values needed for sustainability. Journal of Social
Issues, 51(4), 63-82.

Damianakis, T. (2006). Seeking the spiritual in anti-oppressive organization change. Critical

Social Work, 7(1). Retrieved from http://www.uwindsor.ca/criticalsocialwork/seeking-
the-spiritual-in-anti-oppressive-organizational-change

Dominelli, L. (2002). Anti-oppressive social work theory and practice. London, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Critical Social Work, 2012 Vol. 13, No. 1

 80
Campbell & Baikie

Finn, J. & Jacobson, M. (2008). Just practice: A social justice approach to social work (2nd ed.).
Peosta, IA: Edie Bower Publishing Co.

Fook, J. (2002). Social work: Critical theory and practice. London, UK: Sage Publications.

Graham, J., Coholic, D., & Coates, J. (2006). Spirituality as a guiding construct in the
development of Canadian social work: past and present considerations. Critical Social
Work, 7(1). Retrieved from http://www.uwindsor.ca/criticalsocialwork/spirituality-as-a-
guiding-construct-in-the-development-of-canadian-social-work-past-and-present-cons

Healy, K. (2005). Social work theories in context. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.

Hick, S., Fook, J., & Pozzuto, R. (Eds.). (2005). Social work: A critical turn. Toronto, ON:
Thompson Education Publishing.

Hick,S., & Pozzuto, R. (2005). Introduction: Towards ‘becoming’ a critical social worker. In S.
Hick, J. Fook, & R. Pozzuto (Eds.), Social work: A critical turn (pp. ix-xviii). Toronto,
ON: Thompson Education Publishing.

Ibrahim, F.A. & Owen, V. (1994). Factor analytic structure of the scale to assess world view.
Current Psychology, 13(3). Retrieved from
http://www.springerlink.com/content/1x116198lx075903/

Jackson, M.G. (2008). Transformative learning for a new worldview. New York, NY: Palgrave
MacMillan.

James, C., Este, D., Bernard, W., Benjamin, A., Lloyd, B., & Turner, T. (2010). Race and well-
being. Black Point, NS: Fernwood.

Kincheloe, J. & MacLaren, P. (2000). Rethinking critical theory in qualitative research. In N.

Denzin & Y. Linclon (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) (pp. 279-314.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lang, S.K.W. (2005). ‘Decolonialism’ and the counselling profession: The Aotearoa/New
Zealand experience. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 4(4),
557-572.

Leonard, P. (2001). The future of critical social work in uncertain conditions. Critical Social
Work, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.uwindsor.ca/criticalsocialwork/the-future-of-
critical-social-work-in-uncertain-conditions

Mary, N. (2008). Social work in a sustainable world. Chicago, Ill: Lyceum Books, Inc.

Mullaly, B. (2007). The new structural social work (3rd ed.). Toronto, ON: Oxford University
Press.

Critical Social Work, 2012 Vol. 13, No. 1

 81
Campbell & Baikie

Naples, N.A. (2003). Feminism and method: Ethnography, discourse analysis and activist
research. New York, NY: Routledge.

Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers. (n.d.). Vision, mission and values. Retrieved from
http://www.nsasw.org

Rusbult, C. (n.d.). What is a world view? Retrieved from

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/views/index.html

Schein, E. (2003). On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Reflections, 4(4), p. 27-38.

Vidal, C. (2007). An enduring philosophical agenda: Worldview construction as a philosophical

method. Brussels, BE: Vrije Universiteit. Retrieved from
http://cogprints.org/5408/1/vidal2007-wp.pdf

Zapf, M. (2009) Social work and the environment: Understanding people and place. Toronto,
ON: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.

Critical Social Work, 2012 Vol. 13, No. 1