Chapter 1

Human Behavior and the Social Environment

Exploring Conceptual Foundations

Susan I. Stone, Yolanda Anyon, Stephanie Berzin, Sarah Taylor, and Michael J. Austin

Social and behavioral science theories represent a key source of knowledge for social work practice. One core function of social work scholarship is to select, synthesize, and translate this knowledge for specific use within the profession, including research, practice, and social work education. Because these theories have been generated for purposes that are often loosely related to goals and needs of the social work profession, a complex set of factors shape the “borrowing” process, including assessments of fit between theories and professional values, their evidentiary base, and their applicability and transportability to practice.

There is surprisingly little social work literature explicitly addressing theory selection, synthesis, and translation in terms of constructs related to human behavior and development, environmental influences, and their interrelationship (Kondrat, 1992; Zaparanick & Wodarski, 2004). Indirect evidence related to theory selection can be culled from research on the HB&SE (human behavior and the social environment) curriculum and related Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) standards. Content analyses of HB&SE syllabi indicate considerable heterogeneity in theoretical approaches utilized as well as overrepresentation of explanatory theory related to human behavior and development relative to theories related to the social environment (Taylor, Austin, & Mulroy, 2004; Taylor, Mulroy, & Austin, 2004). The most recent CSWE standards (2008) call for the selection of “theories and knowledge from the liberal arts to understand biological, social, cultural, psychological, and spiritual development” (p. 6).

This volume summarizes explanatory theories that are (a) related to human behavior and development in the social environment and (b) can be used to inform social work practice. It represents, in many ways, an important attempt at selection, synthesis (summarizing core theoretical content, assessments of the evidentiary bases of theories), and translation (assessments of applicability to practice) of key concepts that help bring theoretical depth and breadth to the person-in-environment perspective that has historically been central to the social work profession (Cornell, 2006) Although an introductory chapter to a volume such as this might attempt to classify, compare, and/or integrate the various theories presented (e.g., see Robbins, Chatterjee, & Canda, 2009), our overarching aim will be different. Because social work scholars regularly identify and describe theories of potential utility for the profession (e.g., see Green & McDermott, 2010, for a recent example), such an approach seems premature as we are skeptical that there is shared understanding and definitions of cross-cutting dimensions along which theories might be compared. Instead, our goal is to complement the theories summarized in this volume by describing key scholarly and professional dilemmas related to theorizing about human behavior and the social environment (Bloom & Klein, 1996) that we believe are important to consider prior to comparative endeavors.

Specifically, the chapter approaches constructs related to human behavior and the social environment from multiple perspectives: historical, conceptual, and empirical. It is designed to generate discussion of the critical issues that emerge from the utilization of social and behavioral science.

The chapter is organized around the following question: How might the HB&SE construct be conceptualized, and what are some critical issues associated with defining it? To address this question, the following sections include: (a) a discussion of the role of theory in social work research and practice, especially as it relates to the HB&SE knowledge base as well as enduring tensions related to the uses of theory; (b) key highlights of the historical evolution of the HB&SE curriculum as reflected in curriculum standards developed by CSWE and related debates; (c) a presentation of selected frameworks that link human behavior with the social environment in alternative ways and may assist in the translation of HB&SE knowledge into practice; and (d) conclusions and implications for further critical reflection and dialogue.

Scholarly and Professional Dilemmas Related to Human Behavior and the Social Environment

A hallmark of the social work profession is its long-standing contextualist orientation (Weick, 1999), in which so-called person-environment perspectives serve as core components of the social work knowledge base (Cornell, 2006). At the same time, there has been considerable debate about specific elaboration of the relationship between human development, behavior, and the social environment (e.g., Bloom & Klein, 1996). We briefly sketch these debates as they relate to four overarching themes: (1) development of the social work knowledge base, (2) the utility of middle range (domain-specific) theory, (3) appropriate specification of units of analysis (individual, group, community, etc.), and (4) the nature of the relationship between persons and their environments.

Development of the Social Work Knowledge Base

Goldstein (1990) uses a three-part model of explicit and implicit theories, accumulated research, and practice-related experiences and information (e.g., skills, practice, wisdom) to characterize the knowledge base of social work. This model suggests that optimal knowledge development occurs when there is a seamless interconnection between theory, research, and practice. Given that there are a variety of factors relevant to understanding the nature of linkages between theory, research, and practice, we note those that relate to knowledge development in the social sciences in general, as well as those that appear to be uniquely germane to the social work profession.

Theory–Research Linkages

Philosophers of science generally agree that formal theory building and testing is uneven and nonlinear, often serendipitous, related to historical and social contextual factors, and dependent on methodological innovation (Committee on Scientific Principles in Education Research, 2001). Because public support for research also influences the extent to and speed with which theory is developed, limited support for social work research represents an important constraint.

Different mechanisms underlie the linkages between theory, research, and practice, and it is important to underscore key differences between basic and applied research processes. For example, strategies used to test formal theory (theory-research links) may, at times, be quite distinct from those used to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of practice (research-practice links; see Fraser & Gallinsky, 2010; Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991).

Theory–Practice Linkages

Because formal theories are necessarily abstract, a complex set of steps may be necessary to link theoretical concepts to practice techniques and principles (Van De Ven & Johnson, 2006). Because the social work profession generally borrows formal theories from other social science disciplines, it is also reasonable to expect some degree of mismatch between available theory and practice applications. For these reasons, scholars from other helping professions (e.g., education and nursing) argue for the development and use of middle range (also referred to as domain-specific) theory because of its potential translatability into practice (Committee on Scientific Principles in Education Research, 2001; Liehr & Smith, 1999; McKenna, 1997). According to Merton (1968, p. 39), middle range theories are “intermediate to the minor working hypotheses evolved in abundance during the day-by-day routine of research, and the all-inclusive speculations comprising a master conceptual scheme.”

Due to the heterogeneity of goals related to theory, research, and practice, the development of the social work knowledge base is complex. Some scholars find little use for the theory–research–practice model and argue that theoretical and empirical knowledge are essentially incompatible or, at best, loosely coupled with practice knowledge (Goldstein, 1990; Weick, 1999). More recently, Thyer (2001) documented fundamental misunderstandings about research processes unique to formal theory testing and a tendency toward the overvaluation of theory building in relationship to other research endeavors that support the development of social work practice.

It is notable that these sources of tension within social work stand in marked contrast to recent appraisals of knowledge development within the professions of education and nursing. In general, these appraisals reflect a shared understanding of (a) the current state of the relevant knowledge base, (b) the types of theory building and integration necessary to further the profession, (c) critical areas for research, and (d) strategies that focus on particularly promising midrange theories that promote linkages to practice (Committee on Scientific Principles in Education Research, 2001; McKenna, 1997; Van De Ven & Johnson, 2006).

The lack of consensus about the conceptual foundation of the relationship between human behavior and the social environment provides critical contextual backdrop of this chapter. Each chapter in this volume traces the development of a...