Fig.
1: Eclectic Ball
The social work profession, aside its holistic tradition and
gold-standard values, draws resources from a wide range of fields,
including but not limited to psychology, sociology, biology,
international relations, conflict resolution and peace studies,
humanities, statistics, indigenous knowledge, religion, environmental
sciences, health sciences, public administration, and political science
Given the biopsychosocial dimension of the covid-19 pandemic, some
theoretical scheme are germane to aiding our efforts in downgrading the
effect of the pandemic. Classic expositions reflect in strengths-based
practice (anchored around building hope, resilience, optimism,
relationship, and resources-some of which are innate and many of which
are in the natural environment, [Saleebey, 2006]), anti-oppressive
practice (premised on challenging systemic exclusion, discrimination,
and marginalization of vulnerable groups [Dominelli, 1996, 2002]),
developmental practice (edged on advocating for investments in social
protection programmes [e.g. old age benefits, for older adults for
instance] and socioeconomic infrastructures [Midgley, 1993, 1995,
2010; Amadasun, 2020]), and indigenous practice (predicated on
according value to indigenous knowledge and practice [e.g.
supplementing institutional care with community-based care for at-risk
populations]).
A strengths-based approach provides useful strategies that builds on
people’s positive adaptation (Seligman, 1991; Seligman and
Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Saleebey, 2006). Its unique feature is linked to
its focus on the strengths of individuals, families, groups,
organizations, and communities. It demands a different way of viewing
people in distress by looking beyond the “surface” and identifying
protective factors at their disposal which can help to promotes
resilience and solidify coping strategies. The perspective entails goal
orientation and attainment, strengths assessment, community resource
identification, case management and intervention, hope-inducing
relationship, and making meaningful choices (Buckingham and Clifton,
2001). This is integral as studies affirm that despite the adversities
and travails accompanying the current pandemic, people can always
demonstrate not only resilience but also thrive amid family despair and
social disruptions (Aspinwall, 2001; Aspinwall and Staudinger, 2003).
Midgley’s (1993, 1995, 2010) work has been pivotal in embedding a
developmental approach to social work professional intervention. Often
termed “developmental social work” or “developmental practice”, the
approach transcend the residual or clinical realm of social work
intervention. Its central theme is premised on the realization that
professionals should be involved in promoting enabling social
environment as a precondition for social stability (Midgley and Conley,
2010; Amadasun, 2020a).
Anti-oppressive social work addresses social divisions and structural
inequalities. It aims to change the structure and procedures of service
delivery through macro-systemic changes at the legal and political level
(Clifford and Burke, 2009; Baines, 2011). According to Dominelli (2002),
anti-oppressive practice embodies a person-centered philosophy; an
egalitarian value system concerned with reducing the deleterious effects
of structural inequalities upon people’s lives; a methodology focusing
on both process and outcome; and a way of structuring relationships
between individuals that aim to empower users by reducing the negative
effects of social hierarchies on their interaction and the work they do
together. Baines (2011) supports the notion that anti-oppressive social
work should attempt to build safe and respectful environments for
marginalized populations.
More than ever, now is the time for looking inward, finding solace in
and reviving our often neglected cultural values. Undeniably, the
profession recognizes the import of indigenous ways of knowing and their
profound value in surmounting challenging times (Amadasun, 2020a). Given
the turmoil of the time, arising from social distancing declarations
combined with the fast depleting economic resources and grossly
inadequate and overstretch healthcare facilities; our value systems
underscoring social solidarity, fraternity, and communality could prove
useful in forging resilience and persistence. Of course, these values
are not meant to supplant institutional care but to supplement them
given that no single method supersedes the other. Utilizing indigenous
knowledge which finds outlet in community-based care, for instance, may
become crucial to caregiving to high risk groups such as older adults.
In essence, indigenous practice must transcend the corridors of
platitudinal expression to attitudinal commitments since such care,
defined by relationship, optimism, resilience, spirituality are crucial
to recovery (Drury et al., 2009, 2019).
Are we going to be faced with ethical dilemmas in the course of our
work? Most definitely. Tellingly, while many social workers are already
in the frontline, just as others are reinventing strategies for maximum
impact making, some are equally grappling with ethical concerns. Of
course, the “holy grail” of social work ethics: confidentiality and
respect for privacy, and self-determination, will be the major ethical
issues of concerns. Many will be torn as to respecting clients’ right to
self-determination (e.g. to forego treatment following confirmation of
the virus, for instance) or whether to breach such ethic by reporting
such cases to authorities. Aside contravening our ethical codes, such
act equally violates the ethical charge of respect for privacy and
confidentiality. The question therefore is: how do we navigate such
dilemmas amid the threat to public safety? Ethical scholars (Reamer
2013; Reamer and Abramson, 1982; Dolgoff et al., 2009) have made clear
the point that personal or individual interests should succumb to
overall public interest especially when the former has the tendency to
wreak havoc on the latter. Although this seems linear and simplistic, it
is not always an easy choice in the face of fiduciary or long formed
trust between service-providers and service-users. However, both
deontological and teleological thoughts speak of the greatest good for
the greatest number, including upholds the sanctity of life of people
(Kant, 1959; Mill, 1998). In this sense, divulging information by
reporting to relevant authorities real or suspected cases of covid-19
conspicuously act to protect the interests of society but may be subtle
to the individual. By applying this rule, navigating ethical dilemmas
may not be so much daunting since our primary responsibility is to
promote the general well-being of society (NASW, 2008)