Member blog: How Martin Narey is "manipulating" debate on the definition of social work

The focus of this piece is a short extract – comprising about two thirds of a page – on page 13 of Sir Martin Narey’s recent report, 'Making the education of social workers consistently effective'. In that extract, he criticises the international definition of social work, leading to a recommendation that the Chief Social Worker for England should lead on drawing up a new definition, from which universities should work.

There is much in Narey’s report to draw my ire, for its want of rigour. My very narrow focus here will expose, first, the central fallacy of his argument in that extract; second, the techniques used to promote that fallacy; and third, the very real dangers of his recommendation.

Under the heading “A definition of social work” Narey draws on two sources: an extract from a book by Mel Gray and Stephen Webb, and the international definition of social work. The first of those sources has no pretensions to be a definition of social work. It is eye-catching in its call for anti-capitalist militancy, which is no doubt why it is there – to mock an alleged left-wing bias of social work education. This eye-catching rhetoric is what might be expected of these authors. Let me take you to another piece of their rhetoric:

“The International Association of Schools of Social Work and the International Federation of Social Workers have produced a ‘global agenda for social work’ … rather than vainly offering up sanguine diets of ‘global social work’ through cherished principles and best practice models, the International Federation of Social Workers should be launching militant agendas, such as ‘In Defence of Equality: Social Work Against Neoliberal Capitalism’. We wonder if our international organisations have the appetite to lead such a progressive agenda. Are they prepared to stand up in defiance?”

It is the same kind of rhetorical language, but just look at the focus of its criticism: this is a full frontal assault on the bodies responsible for the international definition of social work, including the international body which leads on social work education. To acknowledge that that body is broad enough to encompass these views is not to place their views within the mainstream. If Narey wanted alternative definitions and understandings of social work, he would have done better to review the eight tables in Chapter 2 of Malcolm Payne’s ‘What is Professional Social Work’ which systematically review understandings of social work over different times, in different places, and from different perspectives .

The central fallacy of Narey’s piece, then, is that he illustrates an alleged bias in social work with reference to authors who, had he but known, have set themselves up on a platform which challenges the social work mainstream.

But did he perhaps know only too well what he was doing? I have already observed that these juicy quotes serve well the current government’s agenda, because it is easy to mock the extreme language in the current climate. But that is not all he has done. By juxtaposing these quotes alongside the international definition of social work, he is actually going to create the impression – the wholly false impression – that the international definition comes from the same school, and so should be subject to the same criticism.

When I read this sentence, I think he knows only too well how he is manipulating his argument: “It’s not that it’s an appalling definition.” Too right it’s not. Why say it then? So that he can water the seeds of the idea that it might be appalling, seeds he has sown when he opened by quoting it alongside words that are not a definition of social work, authored by opponents of the current international social work agenda. Clever techniques to deceive the reader, it seems to me.

The truth of the matter, of course, is that while individuals are free to propound as they wish, the international definition of social work is one that has to emerge by negotiation and agreement across the international social work profession. Such a process of negotiation and agreement may be hard for Narey to fathom; he himself nominates an individual to lead on creating the definition he wants to see.

It is perhaps inevitable that the negotiation and agreement that lies behind the international definition focuses on the core that we have in common with social workers across the globe; and the cherished visions of both Gray and Webb on the one hand, and Narey on the other, are unlikely to be reflected in such a carefully crafted statement of commonality. Although he doesn’t mention it, the definition is currently being renegotiated. I have been privileged to be part of that process. I say ‘privileged’ because I value both the processes of negotiation and compromise, and the emergent identity of a truly international profession.

Which brings me to the final point, the real danger of Narey’s recommendation. It seems to me BASW hit the nail on the head when it opened its response to Narey reminding us that “social work is a single, internationally recognised profession”. At the end of the day, it is simply not in Narey’s gift, or the Government’s gift, to define social work any more than it can define medicine, law or teaching. It can, of course, contribute to the debate by offering up what it thinks social work should be. It can, moreover, legislate to say what social workers must do and what must be done by social workers.

Is that not much the same thing as having the right to define social work? Well possibly this is mere semantics. Yet Jim Ife, in his book, Human Rights and Social Work, has made these observations about social work internationally:

“In societies such as that of the United Kingdom, social work has been seen as the implementation of the policies of the welfare state through the provision of statutory services … In others, however, such as in Latin America, ‘social work’ has much more radical or activist connotations … In some contexts, such as the United States, individualised therapeutic roles for social workers are dominant … in other contexts, particularly in the developing world, social work has a much stronger community development orientation …”

So the profession in this country already stands contrasted with elsewhere in a global context as a ‘statutory’ profession. But at least for the time being it is recognised as part of an international profession. That is not because the rest of the world is obliged to agree with the Chief Social Worker for England. It is because we have not yet diverged so far from our international colleagues as to be unrecognisable as social workers.

I can only hope that day is not coming soon.

Allan Norman is a registered social worker practising at Celtic Knot. He is a member of BASW’s Policy, Ethics and Human Rights Committee. He is writing here in a personal capacity. Find Allan on Twitter @CelticKnotTweet

[1] Gray, M. and Webb, S.A. (2013) ‘Towards an Issue-based Politics in Social Work Education’ In  Noble, C. Strauss, H. and Littlechild, B. (eds.) (forthcoming) Global Social Work Education: Crossing borders and blurring boundaries

[2] Payne, M. (2006) ‘The Identity of Social Work’ In What is Professional Social Work 2nd ed. (2006) Birmingham: Policy Press pp 23-52

[3] Ife, J. (2013) Human Rights and Social Work 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press p12