what's wrong with them is what's wrong with us

This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]On: 11 October 2014, At: 16:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Community PracticePublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcom20

What's Wrong with Them IsWhat's Wrong with UsMichael A. Lawson MS a & Tania Alameda-LawsonMSW ba Communities In Schools of Sacramento, Inc. , 930Alhambra Boulevard, Suite 292, Sacramento, CA,95816, USAb Division of Social Work , California StateUniversity, Sacramento , 6000 J Street, Sacramento,CA, 95819-6090, USAPublished online: 11 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Michael A. Lawson MS & Tania Alameda-Lawson MSW (2001)What's Wrong with Them Is What's Wrong with Us, Journal of Community Practice, 9:1,77-97, DOI: 10.1300/J125v09n01_05

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J125v09n01_05

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcom20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J125v09n01_05

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J125v09n01_05

indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:00

11

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

What’s Wrong with ThemIs What’s Wrong with Us

Michael A. Lawson, MSTania Alameda-Lawson, MSW

ABSTRACT. Boundary maintaining exercises and processes appear torepresent a primary barrier to both community social work practice andcomplex change initiatives alike. This article proposes that the ways com-munity social workers frame the need for systemic change, systemic trans-formation, and social justice can mirror practices and processes thatperpetuate the common gap between vulnerable populations and institu-tions. This article offers a conceptual framework to develop social workpractices that address multi-level and multi-systemic boundary maintain-ing processes and activities. Implications for the advanced generalist perspec-tive are explored. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth DocumentDelivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> 2001 by The HaworthPress, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Boundaries, community practice, consumer-led prac-tice, community collaboration, complex change initiatives, communitydevelopment, inter-professional collaboration

Michael A. Lawson is Assistant Director, Communities In Schools of Sacramento,Inc., 930 Alhambra Boulevard, Suite 292, Sacramento, CA 95816 (E-mail:[email protected]).

Tania Alameda-Lawson is Assistant Professor, Division of Social Work, Califor-nia State University, Sacramento, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95819-6090 (E-mail:[email protected]).

The authors are grateful to United Way, California Capital Region and the Sacra-mento County Department of Human Assistance for their support of our work.

A previous version of this article was presented in the ACOSA Symposium at the46th Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, New York,NY, 2000.

Journal of Community Practice, Vol. 9(1) 2001 2001 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:00

11

Oct

ober

201

4

CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUNDAND AUTHORS’ FRAMES OF REFERENCE

Many approaches to community development are built on the beliefthat multiple individuals, groups, stakeholders, and communities cancollaborate to influence and integrate community, organizational, andinstitutional agendas, structures, and cultures (Bond & Keys, 1993;Lawson, Briar-Lawson, Petersen, Harris, Hoffman, Derezotes, Sallee,Berns, Atwell, Nelson, Ynacay-Nye, Boyer, Western, Wisen, Ashton,Garcia, Kessin, Khaja, & Soto, 1999). Translating this belief into mean-ingful and replicable practice strategies, however, has proven to be a tallorder (Adelman & Taylor, 1997; Elmore, 1996). Moreover, even whengroups do collaborate, we question whether promising working rela-tionships and helping strategies actually transform existing structuresand processes enough to affect meaningfully the lives and futures of ourmost vulnerable children, youths, and families (Adelman, 1996; Adelman& Taylor, 1997; Gardner, 1994; Giroux, 1997; Lawson & Briar-Lawson,1997).

Our practice and scholarly work has explored these issues within thecontext of replicating a consumer-guided and run three componentmodel that links school and educational reform with social service re-form through consumer-guided and consumer-run programs and othercommunity development-oriented and collaborative methods.1 Becausethe complexity of this strategy exceeds the scope of this article, the fol-lowing principles and practice theories define the general assumptionsand foundations which have governed our work:

• Many of the challenges and problems experienced in low-incomecommunities stem from the lack of meaningful opportunities thatparents and residents have to pursue occupational development-oriented activities and programs that fulfill their aspirations forthemselves and their children.

• Parents and low-income residents who are closest to communitychallenges–specifically those residents who are the most difficultto reach by conventional service methods, including the long-term un-employed–are the most qualified to identify the most pressingneeds and/or problems in their community.

• When provided with appropriate supports, a community’s mostchallenged parents and low-income residents may be the best

78 JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:00

11

Oct

ober

201

4

charged with designing, implementing, and operating programsthat address (parent and resident conceptions of) community needs.

• When parent and resident-designed and run programs are imple-mented effectively at schools, both children and families bene-fit–resulting in neighborhoods that may become revitalized andcommunities which may become more self-sufficient, self-reliant,and self-sustaining.

• Sustainable consumer-guided and run change initiatives can beachieved only when a problem-solving consortium of communityprofessionals and community residents is convened to leveragehuman, fiscal, and organizational resources sufficiently to affectexisting institutional policies, structures, and cultures that areharmful to vulnerable communities.

These assumptions and practice theories emerged from successfulwork undertaken in South Miami Beach, Florida where a cadre oflow-income women, known as The Rainmakers, influenced their schoolcommunity through consumer-guided and run programs. Over the courseof the Healthy Learners project the test scores at Feinberg Fisher Ele-mentary have improved by more than 250%, school attendance has in-creased from worst to first in the feeder pattern, and the school wasrecognized as the premier Title One school in the state for two yearsduring the 1990s. In addition, the consumer-led and interprofessionalschool-community consortium that was supported the project and facil-itated meaningful changes in housing statutes and other policy issuescontibuting to the sustained improved outcomes for South Miami Beach’smost vulnerable children and families (Alameda, 1996; Alameda-Lawson& Lawson, 2000).

Thirteen states replicated portions of the Rainmaker Model duringthe 1990s. However, none of these efforts was able to generate the dra-matic results and outcomes achieved by the Rainmakers of South Mi-ami Beach. Nevertheless, because we believed that the RainmakerModel could be replicated in vulnerable school communities, we con-ceptualized a way of practice that could help us and others understandhow to engage low-income parents and community residents as leadersin, and facilitators of, complex change in vulnerable school-communitycontexts (see also Alameda, 1996; Alameda-Lawson & Lawson, 1999;Hooper-Briar & Lawson, 1994; Lawson & Briar-Lawson, 1997; Lawsonet al., 1999). Consequently, like other similarly ambitious community-development efforts, our practice strategy and reform model started

Michael A. Lawson and Tania Alameda-Lawson 79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:00

11

Oct

ober

201

4

with trying to find a clear conceptual mechanism to help the practition-ers we work with (both professional and paraprofessional) facilitate anend to the vicious, harmful and destructive cycles included in the livesof some individuals living in low-income communities. In order to ac-complish this objective, however, we had to start by clearly articulatinghow to engage the hardest-to-reach individuals and populations.

Replicating the Engagement of Hard to ReachParents and Families

Not surprisingly, we found that many of the most challenged andhard-to-employ families were hardened, burdened, depressed, and of-ten oppressed by continuously negative interpersonal, community, pro-fessional-client, and institutional interactions. Consequently, in ourview, the key to successful and ongoing engagement with these individ-uals and families depended on our (the practitioner’s) ability to help re-verse such negative cycles of interaction by not perpetuating themourselves. Through the use of a construct we had helped develop, called“paradoxical practices” (Hooper-Briar, Lawson, & Alameda, 1996;Hooper Briar & Lawson, 1994), we postulated that if we could findways and means to frame consumers’ histories of “negative” actions,interactions, situations, and behaviors in positive ways–especially if wecould take such experiences and translate them into occupational devel-opment and economic opportunity strategies–then engagement betweenpractitioners and consumers would eventuate.2

The use of paradoxical practices has been successful in generatingsustained and meaningful engagement of the most hard to reach andvulnerable populations included in our current work of trying to repli-cate the Rainmaker Model in a Sacramento County-based project calledParent Led Assistance Network (PLAN). During this time, we havelearned to attribute this success to the constant blurring of conventionalprofessional/consumer boundary maintaining practices. Because guard-ing against one’s boundaries is a staple descriptor for social workersand educators alike seeking to balance the often grueling personal tollstheir work has on them, the metaphor and construct of boundaries hasbeen a useful explanation to others of how social workers, educators,and paraprofessionals reconceptualize their individual interactions withvulnerable children, youth, and families.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:00

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Replicating the Community-Led, Interprofessional Consortium

Like other advocates of community collaboration, we have foundthat the absence of consumer-led community consortia results in com-munity conditions and barriers not transformed or removed sufficientlyto sustain the engagement of vulnerable community residents (Family-Re-source Coalition, 1996; Himmelman, 1997; Lawson et al., 1999). Wehave also found that conventional service-centered, collaboratives andcollaborations which focus almost exclusively on achieving service in-tegration–and thereby improving service delivery and access–appear tobe limited in their orientation because they often do not meet residents’conceptions of what they think they need in order to better themselvesand their community (Alameda-Lawson & Lawson, 2000). Conse-quently, when we attempted to replicate consumer-led community con-sortia and collaborations in other contexts we acknowledged thatcollaborative strategies focusing on generating professional stakeholderbuy-in may spend an inordinate amount of time defining and creatingproblem domains and action strategies. As a result, these consortia maynot address the fundamental issues and strategies needed to improvelow-income communities and social justice. This realization has chal-lenged us to clarify points of collaboration and systemic transforma-tion: what many professionals believe is needed to “fix” low-incomecommunities–namely, the provision of more professionally-driven ser-vices–versus what our learned experience and expertise indicates–theneed for more economic, occupational, and community development-ori-ented opportunities.

Authors’ Experience in Sacramento County

In Sacramento County alone, it is estimated that there are close to 200community and neighborhood-based collaboratives (Sacramento En-riches, 1999). Although many of these collaboratives and collabora-tions are openly struggling to achieve their goals of improved outcomesfor children, we have been continuously impressed by the ability ofmembers from many of Sacramento County’s collaboratives to articu-late their practice theories and assumptions in ways that mirror the(founding) principals and language sets outlined in the literature. It wasbecause of this espoused knowledge of others that we began the processof addressing the need for the development of consumer-led commu-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:00

11

Oct

ober

201

4

nity consortia through professional jargon. Unfortunately, and some-what surprisingly, many of these discussions–in spite of very cordialand seemingly productive dialogues–spawned disengagement and non-collaboration with and among our prospective community partners.

Because Sacramento County in general, and the state of California inparticular, continue to be seminal “testing grounds” for collaboration(e.g., Adelman & Taylor, 1997; Carreon & Jameson, 1993; Gardner,1994; Lawson & Briar-Lawson, 1997), our work with community-basedprofessionals has shown that national leadership and pioneering are thecornerstone characteristics of each collaborative effort. Yet, despitethis, two years of field work revealed that front-line and middle man-agement professionals interpret collaboration as a deficit-based conceptindicting existing professional work practices (see also, Adelman &Taylor, 1997; Crowson, 1998; Hooper-Briar & Lawson, 1994). Forfrontline practitioners, the notion of blurring categorical practices,structures, and cultures serves largely to compound existing profes-sional work loads, senses of role overload, as well as general frustra-tions that reinforce the growing suspicion and belief that maybe thingscan not get much better (Cole and Pearson-Salazar, 1999). Despite un-derpinnings of pride, leadership, and ingenuity, many of SacramentoCounty’s professionals appear to be struggling in highly negative workenvironments. In many respects, the conditions which define their workand the types of interactions that occur in their work resemble the inter-actions and experiences of the hardest to reach families with whom wehave worked (see also Adelman, 1999; Lawson & Briar-Lawson,1997).

In sum, we learned that the ways in which we elicited professionalengagement (in support of the Rainmaker Model and consumer-ledcommunity consortia) framed the need for systems change and transfor-mation to helping professionals in the same pathological manner thattends to alienate vulnerable populations from institutions. As we beganto observe other practitioners with similar views of community practiceand community development, we noticed that they were making similarerrors. Since sending a description of an earlier version of this articlethrough ACOSA’s listserv, we have received national and internationalcorrespondence outlining similar frustrations with how to engage pro-fessionals in support of advocacy-based, community development prac-tices. They too are looking for “answers.”


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:00

11

Oct

ober

201

4

These contexts and experiences frame our rationale for mapping aconceptual framework that may help describe the design and mainte-nance of boundary-related and change-resistant structures and culturesin vulnerable, low-income contexts. We offer this framework to helpunderscore the need for more explicit multi-level and multi-modal,strengths-based, social work practice strategies that address multi-leveland multi-systemic boundaries. We suggest that the development ofsuch strategies may facilitate more responsive context specific ap-proaches to ameliorating what appears to be a real problem of practice.We conclude with implications for preparing truly Advanced General-ists.

THE SALIENCE OF BOUNDARIES IN PROFESSIONALAND COMMUNITY CONTEXTS

Boundaries denote territorial possessions, both concrete and sym-bolic, that can be encroached upon, colonized, and reallocated (Becher,1989). Some boundaries are defended so closely by their constituentsthat they are impenetrable. Others are weakly contested and open tofluid interactions and synapses. Boundary shaping, making, and main-tenance becomes interesting and salient in times of great boundarychange (Halley, 1997). Community organizing and development, em-powerment-based projects, and complex change initiatives provide arich context to examine boundary-related processes, practices, and im-plications.

Boundary-related constructs can be used to examine the constructionand interaction between structure and culture in micro, mezzo, andmacro contexts3 (Halley, 1997; Lawson et al., 1999). Interpreted loosely,these constructs may also help scholars and practitioners describe andpredict specific patterns and causes of interactions between and amongprofessionals, their professions, and helping institutions (ibid).

Boundary-related constructs are particularly useful when the terrainunder examination and/or contest is defined by values and value con-flict (Lareau, 1987; Lipman, 1997). Because community organizing anddevelopment, empowerment-oriented initiatives, and complex reform re-volve around competing problem-sets, values, and ethics (Reisch &Lowe, 2000), boundary-related constructs may provide a framework for


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:00

11

Oct

ober

201

4

understanding and negotiating these essential, but barrier-filled, path-ways to progress.

Communities that converge in terms of their fundamental ideologies,common values and frames of reference, and awareness of their belong-ing to a unique tradition are likely to build structures or cultures, eitherconcrete or symbolic, with strong external boundaries (Quantz, 1988).Although numerous studies reveal professionals’ and residents’ la-ments toward individual and collective isolation in low-income con-texts (e.g., Adelman, 1999; Adelman & Taylor, 1997; Lawson &Briar-Lawson, 1997; Lipman, 1997), closer examinations reveal strongindividual and collective senses of belonging and association to specificideologies, tradition(s), and community.

For example, many low-income minorities have fictive kinship net-works that supersede temporal and geographical boundaries and dimen-sions (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu 1995). Similarly, professionals’associations and allegiances to their professions, disciplines, and theirunique traditions tend to reinforce dominant structural and culturalnorms across contexts (Becher, 1989; Knapp & Wolverton, 1995).Even in marginalized communities, where residents and professionalsappear to (and do) struggle daily for survival, legitimacy, efficacy, andcollectivity, convergent communities exist, in spite of feelings of lone-liness and withdrawal within them (Lawson, M., under review; Quantz,1988).

When the actions of insiders or outsiders threaten allegiances to acommunity’s shared ideologies, values, traditions, and discursive prac-tices, attempts to modify the status quo often result in the permanentdismissal, expulsion, or alienation of the change agent from the com-munity4 (Becher, 1989). Because collective resistance to deviationsfrom dominant norms is often so severe in convergent communities,community practitioners who eschew social action and who continue toadvocate for change in spite of resistant forces, are often left with thedaunting task of one-person systems change. Over time, this take on theworld approach causes burn-out and suggests that institutions are notamenable to change from within their boundaries (Lawson et al., 1999).

However, convergent communities and communities do undergo in-ternal processes of critical reflection, examination, and change (Schon,1993). When they do, the processes and conditions from which systemsand institutions can be changed and transformed from within can be ex-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:00

11

Oct

ober

201

4

amined and better understood (Crowson, Boyd, & Mawhinney, 1996;Lawson et al., 1999).

Halley (1997) describes these critical processes as pathways to boundary-lessness; whereby boundaries, instead of being constantly reinforced,are perpetually blurred by heretofore separate communities and interestgroups. Others, such as Giroux (1997), envision this process as an arenafor the development of new and sustainable (discursive) mechanismsfor institutional transformation, democracy, and social justice (see also,Crowson, Boyd, & Mawhiney, 1996). However, because institutionalboundaries in fact resist change, many of these contest laden intra-com-munity processes are incorporated into existing mental models andmodes of thinking, theory, and action (Brint, 1994; Kuhn, 1975; Law-son, 1997).

As such, a central and primary function of boundary shaping andmaking is to help protect a community’s solidarity or collectivity. Yet,in so doing, boundaries are also maintained by keeping “others” out.Consequently, when a different behavior, problem, or value set, eitherthrough implicit or explicit action, is introduced to or into a convergentcommunity, it can be expected that, as a means of protection, individu-als and groups which shape and reinforce the status quo may undertakeactivities and efforts that will manifest and reinforce the community’sexternal boundaries (Ogbu, 1995). These implicit or explicit actions ofresistance can be described similarly in both psychological and socio-logical contexts.

For example, when someone suggests we, our family, community,culture, or interests have committed an act of deviance, incompetence,or immorality, we may respond by directly engaging in boundary main-taining activities, or we may achieve the same end by disengaging fromthe process altogether (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986). One example is whena child welfare worker tells a low-income mother that she needs to go toclasses to learn how to be a “good” parent, her reaction to curse at thesocial worker may be explained as a boundary maintaining activity, asmay her non-compliance by choosing not to attend a court-mandatedparenting class.

Similarly, community social workers, community practitioners, andsocial work educators often argue that the impetus for successful inter-vention stems from consumer and client identification of the issues andneeds that are most pressing in their lives (Briar-Lawson & Drews,1998; Family Resource Coalition, 1996). Post-modern scholars and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:00

11

Oct

ober

201

4

practitioners challenge conventional concepts of whose knowledge andexpertise is important, under what conditions, when, and why, in advo-cating for culture- and context-specific practices and theories of helping(Lawson, 1999c). While these scholars and practitioners praise the prac-tice of consumer/client identification of needs, it may nonetheless counterthe positivist assumptions that govern existing concepts of professionalexpertise and therapeutically driven practice(s) (Brint, 1994).

Such divisions and/or differences in theories of practice may alsoprompt boundary making, shaping, and maintaining activities. Thus,when community social workers advocate for non-conventional inter-ventions and practices in low-income settings, their opinions and ac-tions may be interpreted by others–including social workers in the childwelfare system–as a challenge to existing cultural and structural value-ladenproblem sets and procedures, resulting in boundary maintaining behav-iors such as direct resistance, sabotage, or disengagement (see alsoAdelman & Taylor, 1997; Crowson, 1998).

Although the above may represent tacit knowledge for those investedin community practice, we believe that any prescription for generatingstrategies which can improve social justice with, and on behalf of, vul-nerable populations should include an explicit understanding of stake-holder and community boundaries. We also believe any strategiesshould include understanding of the structural and cultural dynamicswhich shape, make, and maintain them. Without this understandingmany helping professionals and scholars may repeat the same defi-cit-based articulation of needs that has separated these populations fromschools, child welfare programs, and the practitioners and social work-ers within them.

When we frame the need for change and social justice by articulatingthe oversights associated with existing practitioners, organizations, andinstitutions, we communicate that they need repair. When we articulatethe need for change in deficit-based terms, we fall into the same trap ofboundary-shaping, boundary-making, and boundary-maintaining exer-cises as scholars and practitioners whose pedagogies and practice strategiesare based on market driven, professional-knows-best methodologiesdesigned to fix others. When we enter the boardroom to tell themtheir wheel is broken, what is wrong with them becomes what is wrongwith us.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:00

11

Oct

ober

201

4

NEEDS FOR MULTI-MODAL, STRENGTHS-BASEDCHANGE STRATEGIES

Dialects and dialectical intersections enable institutional processesto be collectively deconstructed by community stakeholders so thatthose normalized practices that are harmful, and hurtful can be trans-formed5 (Gergen, 1994, 1995; Giroux, 1997; Knapp & Wolverton,1995; Ladson-Billings, 1995). This section is intended to map what ap-pear to be some of the relevant boundary-related barriers to the creationof dialects and dialectical intersections. We hope that such a mappingcan be used as a linking mechanism to reach, in practice, the process ofreconstruction–whereby new modes of thinking, theory, action, and so-cial production result in institutions that are not only more helping, butmore helpful as well (Argyris & Schon, 1996; Gergen, 1994, 1995;Giroux, 1997; Hargreaves, 1996; Lawson et al., 1999).

We believe that one of the primary barriers to the development ofthese dialects, dialectical intersections, and discourses that facilitateand create meaningful change strategies stem from inter- and intra-community, organizational, and institutional boundary shaping, mak-ing, and maintaining practices and activities.6 While we recognize thesocial reproductionist elements and functions of institutions, we do notbelieve, however, that people are passive recipients of structural condi-tions (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Rather, we proscribe to the notion thatpeople possess a social agency that enables them to influence, shape,and change their environments (Quantz, 1988).

Our focus on how to begin the process of deconstruction is to concep-tualize a framework that is based on promoting and developing socialagency, discourse, and new (discursive) community practices betweenand among professional and community stakeholders in context. Webelieve that one way to facilitate this process is to provide a frameworkfor addressing, and eventually removing, the boundary-related barriersthat inhibit the development of more helpful, helping systems.

Using Halley’s (1997) terminology of boundarylessness, the in-tended outcome of this framework is to help create interactions, dis-courses, and eventually, systemic processes and discursive mechanismsin which turf is constantly blurred instead of reinforced (see also,Abbott, 1988; Giroux, 1997). However, to accomplish this end, individ-uals, interest groups, communities, and institutions interested in com-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:00

11

Oct

ober

201

4

plex change initiatives need to learn how to more meaningfully engageeach other (Himmelman, 1997).

Sections of the systems reform and collaboration focused literaturespostulate that the integration of services, systems, and reform effortscan be achieved by addressing their overlapping spheres of influenceand problem domains, as well as their individual and collective organi-zational, systemic, and institutional interests (Bond & Keys, 1993; Gray& Wood, 1991). Giroux (1997) believes that this process can be achievedthrough the development of new languages based on postulates that theway people talk about their lives reflects and determines the way theythink and act. In this view, the goal is to develop, in part, what Kuhn(1975) describes as similarity sets whereby people find ways to de-scribe and communicate similar phenomena to each other in spite of dif-ferent perspectives and interests.

Others argue that pathways to collaboration are best facilitated bythose individuals, communities, systems, and institutions who not onlyrealize that collaboration and change are in their self-interest, but arealso enlightened because they know that their survival depends on theirinterdependent relationships with others (e.g., Lawson, 1998, O’Looney,1997). These scholars posit that one way to facilitate movement towardpositive and outcome generating collaborative practice that supportscomplex change initiatives is to frame needs for responsive, collabora-tive practice strategies as meaningful additions to those existing ap-proaches.

Indeed, collaboration and facilitation processes that acknowledge theimportance of existing knowledge and expertise are one way to gener-ate a framework for boundarylessness (Lawson et al., 1999). On theother hand, affirming existing practices may legitimize many of the ele-ments which may interfere with the structural and cultural improvementof helping systems. The ways in which self interest is facilitated and/ordetermined may further existing and harmful power differences and dy-namics among helping professionals, policy makers, and communityresidents (Himmelman, 1997). Moreover, professionals’ recognition oftheir interdependence with others may not necessarily result in signifi-cant changes in the ways in which they conduct their everyday workroutines (Tyack & Cuban, 1995).

Halley (1997) suggests that boundaries and boundary-maintainingactivities can deter progress to systems (and services) integration andchange on at least eight different, albeit oftentimes interdependent, lev-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:00

11

Oct

ober

201

4

els. These levels include, but may not be limited to, ideological, physi-cal, factual, procedural, organizational, programmatic, relational, andpersonal boundaries. We believe that professional disciplinary bound-aries may also present a distinct and salient boundary level in complex,change-related contexts.

Our experience in replicating the Rainmaker Model suggests that theprocess of addressing, and/or attempting to blur, one of these boundaryareas does not necessarily mean that any or all of the others will or canbe addressed simultaneously. It does suggest, however, that a failure toaddress or remove any one of the aforementioned boundary areas canresult in significant, and in certain cases irreparable, damage to thechange process. Moreover, when we have tried to engage professionalsfrom a what’s wrong with them is what’s wrong with us frame of refer-ence, we have learned that the processes for developing paradoxicalpractice-like strategies for professional engagement are more difficultand complex than those for engaging our most vulnerable clients. Thislesson learned highlights the need for practice strategies that addressmultiple levels and modes of thinking, theory, and action (practice) si-multaneously.

Table 1 lists the boundary-related challenges that manifested them-selves in our weekly experiences. We list them within the context of thenine interdependent, yet distinct, boundary areas mentioned above. Wehope these areas act as a conceptual framework for further developmentof integrated, strengths-based, multi-modal, and multi-level approaches.These might help professionals improve formerly hurtful institutionaland professional processes through interprofessional, community col-laboration.

Although Table 1 defines the boundary-related practices and pro-cesses of our work, we’ve found that professional schools do not ad-dress such issues in proportion to their occurrence in the “real world.”Additional contextualized descriptions of critically driven, strengths-basedstrategies are needed to address the boundary-related barriers to com-plex change. The ability to create pathways to boundarylessness, andmore importantly, the institutional transformation that improves out-comes for our most vulnerable clients, depend on such lesson sharing.

While we recognize that the realization of such context specific ap-proaches represents a formidable journey in and of itself, without suchstrategies, we are fearful that modifications of Simon and Garfunkel’shallowed words will resonate in vulnerable communities, institutions,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:00

11

Oct

ober

201

4


TABLE 1. Sketch of Boundary Maintaining Activities

Boundary Area Manifestations of Boundary Maintenance

Physical • Limitations of space• Insider-outsider biases and prejudices• Geographical restrictions such as questions over zoning and jurisdic-

tion including:State-county disclaimers and conflictsState-city disclaimers and conflictsCounty-city disclaimers and conflictsCity-municipality disclaimers and conflictsCounty-municipality disclaimers and conflictsSchool district-school district disclaimers and conflicts

Relational • Rigid reward structures• Rigid accountability structures• Loose reward structures• Loose accountability structures• Limiting and delimiting policies• Comprehensive policy• Vague policy• Needs for capacity building• Categorical decision making• Holistic Decision Making• Indecision

Factual • Includes different interpretations and perceptions of similar phenomenaand shared experiences stemming (usually) from different culturallyconstructed meanings:

Outcome vs. output argumentsHalf-full vs. half-empty argumentsConflicts over whose data best frames the problemMethodological conflictsActions and task-espoused vs. actions and tasks accomplished

arguments

Professional-Disciplinary • Methodological conflicts• Epistemological conflicts• Ontological conflicts• Specialization conflicts• Language and nomenclature differences and conflicts• Funding conflicts• Market-driven changes• Reward conflicts• Union conflicts• Union restrictions• Historicity

Procedural • Rigid individual work routines and conceptions of competent practice• Canonized individual and collective work routines• “I am/we are already doing that” statements• Soft-money/Categorical Mandated Limitations• Technology introductions, implementations, or changes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:00

11

Oct

ober

201

4


Boundary Area Manifestations of Boundary Maintenance

Organizational • Inter-organizational rivalries and conflicts• Intra-organizational rivalries and conflicts• Threats of down-sizing• Threats of job cuts• Static missions• Reformitis/Projectitis• Unstable missions• Threats to existing missions• Vision arguments• Lack of vision arguments• Problem domain conflicts• “Bureaucratic outs”• Soft-money/Categorical mandated limitations

Programmatic • Limiting soft-money/categorical mandates including:Rigid problem focus and settingCategorical objectivesCompetition vs. collaborative dichotomiesMandated collaborationsEvaluation conflictsNon-compliance

Personal • Political agendas• Career anchors• Personality conflicts• Conflict resolution problems• Communication difficulties (including silence)• Realism vs. Idealism dichotomies• Racism/Classism/Ethnocentrism• Anger/Rage• Fear• Despair• Personal history-experience with pain/transference

Ideological • Includes and/or relates to all of the above, and the following conflictingworld views and mind sets:

Morality vs. immoralityCaring vs. negligence and indifferenceFatalism vs. optimismDifferent and Competing Spiritual OrientationsStrength-based vs. deficit-basedDominant cultural traditions/mores vs. minority cultural

traditions/moresCollaboration vs. individualism/isolationismSubject-centered vs. service-centeredService or subject centered vs. child-centeredService, subject, or child-centered vs.:

Family-centered or -supportiveCommunity-development oriented or -centric

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:00

11

Oct

ober

201

4

and consumer-led efforts throughout the 21st Century: “After changesupon changes, things are more or less the same. After changes, thingsare more or less the same.”

THE DEVELOPMENT OF BOUNDARY SPANNERSAND THE RETURN TO A “SOCIAL WORK OF BOUNDARIES”?

Bond and Keys (1993) describe the importance of “Boundary Span-ners” who can relate to multiple groups and constituencies and help me-diate the differences between and among them. While they caution thatrole conflict and role ambiguity can make boundary spanning not onlydifficult, but counter productive, we believe that, if boundary mainte-nance is indeed a preeminent barrier to complex change initiatives,there is a specific need for schools of social work to actively and explic-itly increase the development of social workers who can help vulnerablecommunities mediate and negotiate these extremely complex multi-level,multi-modal, and multi-systemic barriers to community, organizational,professional, institutional, and overall systemic transformation. Be-cause of the range of knowledge and skills needed to accomplish suchan ambitious objective, and because social work continues to be thelone profession with the foundational focus of liberating oppressedpopulations (Briar, 1989), we believe that the Advanced Generalist Per-spective can be utilized to help provide all social work students withmulti-level and multi-modal practice skills and frames of reference.

Abbott (1995) describes the initial focus of social work as a “socialwork of boundaries.” He depicts the original intent of the profession asa creator of interstitiality, whereby social work served to mediate be-tween all of the other professions. As we move into a new century of so-cial work, our experience suggests that this age old focus is still salientto the profession today.

It appears that the devolution of bureaucracies will continue in thecoming decades (Himmelman, 1997). It also appears that the movementtoward grassroots, bottom-up, and value-contested change related proj-ects, initiatives, and collaborations may expand further in scope andcomplexity (Adelman & Taylor, 1997; Lawson et al., 1999). Given thedaunting tasks associated with supporting additional needs for special-ization in an ever and rapidly changing age (e.g., Dear, 1999), perhaps itis time to more actively facilitate the profession’s return to a social work


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:00

11

Oct

ober

201

4

of boundaries. Although we recognize the multi-level and multi-sys-temic challenges and barriers associated with such a paradigm shift orrevolution (de-evolution to others) to a paradoxical and non-conven-tional, generalized specialization, we ask simply: “If not social work,then who?”

Finally, our experience indicates that, through the leadership of trulyadvanced generalists, the most effective “boundary spanners” willprobably be constituted by our most vulnerable community residents.Given the proper voice, means, and skills, we have found that becausecommunity residents tend not to think, talk, act, or behave in rigid, cate-gorical ways or terms (Alameda-Lawson & Lawson, 1999), they areable to provide what we believe is sometimes a lone trump card to thevast array of boundary maintaining activities in complex change relatedcontexts: an appeal to human decency–and within–an appeal and call-ing to the profound simplicity of human wants, needs, aspirations, anddesires.

Because we believe that the vast majority of helping professionalsenter their professions and specializations, in part, to achieve a visionand mission that is larger than themselves, the processes included inhelping to enable community residents to boundary span, may becomea vehicle in which conventional practitioners can continue to use theirexpert knowledge in ways that help support people in addition to serv-ing or servicing them. In turn, such a process, in and of itself, may be amechanism to avoid some of the levels of boundary maintaining activi-ties sketched above. Yet, the question remains, how can we meaning-fully and effectively begin that process of engagement across contexts,cultures, and systems?

CONCLUSION

Our work in trying to replicate and better understand the pathways tobottom-up systems transformation in support of consumer-guided andconsumer-run efforts indicates that boundary maintaining activities area primary barrier. We also believe that our methods and means of fram-ing the need for change have represented a significant part of the prob-lem. If we are not alone, and the challenges associated with negotiatingboundaries, both perceived and real, do in fact represent a primary, “realproblem of practice,” then we believe social work educators can be lead


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:00

11

Oct

ober

201

4

agents in answering this call. Whether or not existing curricula and de-gree structures are also in need of transformation (e.g., Dear, 1999) isthe subject for additional research, debate, and inquiry. Nonetheless, asAbbott (1995) notes:

The environment, in fact, looks in many ways as it did 100 yearsago. Again, we have a welter of social services so confused that noone can figure it out. Again, the populations to be served are oftenboth difficult and despised. Again, there is a diffuse sense thatthose institutions that ought to be caring for individual welfare inthis society are failing in that task. It was from such a complex con-jecture that the old profession of social work emerged. (p. 562)

Perhaps a return to a “social work of boundaries” is the greatest con-tribution to social justice that social work and social work educators canmake in the 21st Century.

NOTES

1. The term “consumer” has been the subject of consumer-producer/market-basedservice analyses which critically question who benefits from conventional service de-livery strategies and exchange frameworks. We continue the use of the term, in spite ofits limitations and susceptibility to power differentials, because we find it the “lesser oftwo evils” when compared to conventional, client-based terminology. The need fornew languages which may greater support and facilitate complex change initiatives re-mains.

2. The basic assumptions and action steps of paradoxical practice can be divided intofour parts:

• Help consumers achieve their potential through intensive supports and advo-cacy.

• Consumers need to be viewed as experts over their lived experiences, values,and frames of reference. Practitioners can help consumers achieve their potentialby helping them to discover and nurture their talents from these “negative” livedexperience(s).

• Consumers need practitioners to help provide meaningful and accelerated learn-ing opportunities for personal and professional growth–not remedial practicesaimed at erasing pathology.

• Practitioners need to help consumers address concrete needs and economic sta-bilization before addressing root causes of their challenges and/or problems.

3. The loose terminology of “boundary-related constructs” refers to what we believeto be non-dichotomous elements of boundary theory, career theory, institutional the-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:00

11

Oct

ober

201

4

ory, social deviance theory, conflict theory, stakeholder theory, and critical theory (seealso, Gray & Wood, 1991). Recognizing that such a leap may prompt boundary main-taining activity in and of itself, our intent in “blurring the boundaries” of these theoriesis not to minimize the unique elements of these macro theories, but to try to morebroadly conceptualize what has become a contextualized problem and challenge asso-ciated with our work.

4. Discursive practices refer to the construction and maintenance of a community’sentire system of symbols and signs–both explicit and implicit (Lawson et al., 1999).

5. According to Briar-Lawson et al. (2000), “Dialects” are embedded in multi-modalintervention and improvement strategies that promote new knowledge, values, andsensitivities. Dialectical intersections refer to the points of engagement which enablesuch strategies to eventuate.

6. Discourse refers to recurrent patterns of language used to reflect individual andgroup practices and values (Giroux, 1997; Lawson et al., 1999).

REFERENCES

Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Abbott, A. (1995). Boundaries of social work or social work of boundaries? Social Ser-vice Review, 69, 545-62.

Adelman, H. (1996). Restructuring educational support services: Toward the conceptof the enabling component. Kent, HOH: American School Health Association.

Adelman, H. (1999). Promoting youth development and addressing barriers. Ad-dressing Barriers to Learning, 4 (4), pp. 1-2.

Adelman, H. & Taylor, L. (1997). Toward a scale-up model for replicating new approachesto schooling. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 5, 197-230.

Alameda, T. (1996). R.A.I.N.makers: The consumers’ voice. In K. Hooper-Briar & H.Lawson (Eds.), Expanding partnerships for vulnerable children, youth, and fami-lies (pp. 46-56). Washington, D.C.: Council on Social Work Education.

Alameda-Lawson, T. & Lawson, M. (1999). Parents as the guiding and unifying com-ponent for restructuring educational support services. Paper presented at the Coun-cil on Social Work Education, San Francisco, CA.

Alameda-Lawson, T. & Lawson, M. (2000). Consumer-led community collaboratives:Building social cultural capital and promoting cultural democracy. Paper pre-sented at the Council on Social Work Education, New York, NY.

Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, andpractice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual inquiry and the cul-tures of disciplines. London: Open University Press.

Bond, M., & Keys, C. (1993). Empowerment, diversity, and collaboration: Promotingsynergy on community boards. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21(1), 37-57.

Brint, S. (1994). In an age of experts: The changing roles of professionals in politicsand public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Carreon, V., & Jameson, W. (1993). School-linked service integration in action: Les-sons drawn from seven California communities. Omaha: CityMatch.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:00

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Cole, T. & Pearson Salazar, T. (1999). Vision Quest: School community stakeholders’perceptions of the meanings and functions of collaboration. California State Uni-versity, Sacramento. Unpublished masters thesis.

Crowson, R. (1998). Community empowerment and the public schools: Can educa-tional professionalism survive? Peabody Journal of Education, 73, (1), 56-68.

Crowson, R., Boyd, W., & Mawhinney, H. (1996). The politics of education, the newinstitutionalism, and reinvented schooling: Some concluding observations. In R.Crowson, W. Boyd, & H. Mawhinney (Eds.). The politics of education and the newinstitutionalism: Reinventing the American School (pp. 189-213). The 1995 Year-book of the Politics of Education Association. Washington DC & London: TheFalmer Press.

Dear, R. (1999). Should MSW Curricula be extended three years? –Yes! Journal of So-cial Work Education, 35 (3), 395-398.

Elmore, R. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educa-tional Review, 66 (1), 1-26.

Family Resource Coalition (1996). Guidelines for family-centered practice. Chicago:Author.

Fordham, S. & Ogbu, J. (1986). Black students’ school success: Coping with the bur-den of acting white. The Urban Review, 18 (3), 177-206.

Gardner, S. (1994). Conclusion. In L. Adler & S. Gardner (Eds.), The politics of linkingschools and social services (pp. 189-200). Washington, DC & London: The FalmerPress.

Gergen, K. (1994). Toward transformation in social knowledge. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Giroux, H. (1997). Pedagogy and the politics of hope: Theory, culture, and schooling.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Gray, B. & Wood, D. (1991). Collaborative alliances: Moving from theory to practice.Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27 (1), 3-22.

Halley, A. (1997). Applications of boundary theory to the concept of service integra-tion in the human services. Administration in Social Work, 31 (3/4), 169-187.

Halpern, R. (1997). Good practice with multiply vulnerable young families: Chal-lenges and principles. Children and Youth Services Review, 19, 253-273.

Hargreaves, A. (1996). Transforming knowledge: Blurring the boundaries between re-search, policy, and practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18,105-122.

Himmelman, A. (1997). Devolution as an experiment in citizen governance: Multi-organizational partnerships and democratic revolutions. Paper presented at theFourth International Conference on Multi-Organizational Partnerships and Cooper-ative Strategy, Oxford University, Oxford, England.

Hooper-Briar, K. & Lawson, H. (1994). Serving children, youth and families throughinterprofessional collaboration and service integration:: A framework for action.Oxford, OH: The Institute for Educational Renewal at Miami University and theDanforth Foundation.

Hooper-Briar, K., Lawson, M., & Alameda, T. (1996). Partnerships for vulnerablechildren and families: Empowering families and communities to develop educa-tional and life success for poor children. Institute on Race & Ethnicity Report,Texas A.& M. University Press: College Station, TX.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:00

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Knapp, M. & Wolverton, S. (1995). Social Class and Schooling. In J. Banks & C.Banks (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Multi-cultural Education. New York:MacMillan.

Kuhn, T. (1975). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chi-cago Press.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. Ameri-can Educational Research Journal, 32, 465-492.

Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The impor-tance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60, 73-75.

Lawson, H. (1997). Children in crisis, the helping professions and the social responsi-bilities of universities. Quest, 49 (1), 8-32.

Lawson, H. (1998). Academically-based community scholarship, consultation as col-laborative problem-solving, and a collective responsibility model for the helpingfields. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 9, 195-232.

Lawson, H. (1999). Journey Analysis: A framework for integrating consultation andevaluation in complex change initiatives. Journal of Educational and Psychologi-cal Consultation, 9, 195-232.

Lawson, H., & Briar-Lawson, K. (1997). Connecting the dots: Progress toward the in-tegration of school reform, school-linked services, parent involvement, and commu-nity schools. Oxford, OH: The Danforth Foundation and the Institute for EducationalRenewal at Miami University.

Lawson, H., Briar-Lawson, K., Petersen, N., Harris, N., Hoffman, T., Derezotes, D.,Sallee, A., Berns, D., Atwell, A., Nelson, D., Ynacay-Nye, R., Boyer, R., Western,P., Wisen, M., Ashton, D., Garcia, J., Kessin, D., Khaja, K., & Soto, E. (1999). Thedevelopment of an empowerment-oriented model for interprofessional educationand training, collaboration, organizational improvement, and policy change. Paperpresented at the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Lipman, P. (1997). Restructuring in context: A case study of teacher participation andthe dynamics of ideology, race, and power. American Educational Research Jour-nal, 34 (1), 3-38.

O’Looney, J. (1997). Marking progress toward service integration: Learning to useevaluation to overcome barriers. Administration in Social Work, 21 (3/4), 31-65.

Ogbu, J. (1995). Cultural problems in minority education: Their interpretations andconsequences–part one. The Urban Review, 27, 189-205.

Quantz, R.A. (1988). Culture: A critical perspective. Paper presented at the AmericanEducational Studies Association, Toronto, Canada.

Reisch, M., & Lowe, J.I. (2000). “Of means and ends” revisited: Teaching ethical com-munity organizing in an unethical society. Journal of Community Practice, 7 (1),19-38.

Sacramento Enriches (1999). Collaborating on collaboration: Results of survey ofSacramento County collaboratives. Sacramento, CA: Mary Brill and Trish Davey.

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. NewYork: Basic Books.

Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public schoolreform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:00

11

Oct

ober

201

4

what's wrong with them is what's wrong with us

Documents