Problem Solving in Clinical Social Work

C URR ENT THEOR ETIC AL STATUS

The roots of problem solving have been reviewed in the historical account of its development, and will now be
examined from a different perspective. Although he included it in the last edition of Social Work Treatment,
Turner indicated then that he did not see Perlman's conceptualization as a completed theory but rather as a "sys-
tem of propositions from which hypotheses could be developed and a theory built" (Turner, 1986, p. 7).
Compton and Galaway also refer to problem solving as a process or model rather than a theory, and they
describe it as "a series of interactions between the client system and the practitioner, involving integration of
feeling, thinking and doing, guided by a purpose and directed toward achieving an agreed-upon goal" (1994, p.
43). It is our view that, based on Turner's definition of a practice theory in Chapter 1 of this book, it is now clearly
to be viewed as a social work theory. If we accept this, what can we look to as its conceptual foundations?

PRINCIPAL CONCEPTS
Problem solving is the rational process human beings use to negotiate a world of reality that is extremely
complicated and, at times, both unknowable and unpredictable. Therefore, it is not always possible for people to
follow the obvious guideline the model sets forth, that one must choose the path that leads most directly to a
desired goal. In reviewing this complex picture, DeRoos notes that the

rational decisions one makes for problem solving represent a subjective orientation to an incomplete
picture of the objective world. This incomplete picture is our representation of objective reality, a
simplified model of objective reality. Our actions are then in accordance with the model, not with objective
reality (1990, p. 278).
Common wisdom and experience seem to indicate to people that they can never know all that they need to
know in order to make a "perfect" decision, so they tend to reach for those that are "good enough." Nevertheless, in
order to achieve even a modest level of success, information must be assembled and processed, and for this, peo-
ple use a mental model called a "heuristic." In logic, a heuristic device is a piece of knowledge or "rule of
thumb learned by trial and error" (McPeck, 1981, p. 17). Heuristics serve the problem solver as a template
for decision making when algorithms would cost too much in the amount of information, processing power, or
time needed (DeRoos, 1990, p. 278). Algorithms are procedures that are guaranteed to solve all classes of
problems (Gilhooly, 1988, p. 22) and are clearly of much more use in the world of mathematics and science
than in the world of human affairs.
Wimsatt notes that heuristics have certain characteristics that limit their usefulness as tools. They do not
guarantee a correct solution although they cost substantially less in time, money, and effort than an algorithm
(assuming that one is available for the specific human situation), and they produce systematic patterns of failure
and

error (DeRoos, 1990, p. 278). Despite these limitations, human beings are not as constrained as they might be
in their problem solving because, "through the convergent application of multiple heuristics, one increases
the likelihood of attaining a desirable outcome" (DeRoos, p. 280); although heuristic correspondence with
the real world may be imperfect, it is sufficiently congruent with reality to allow people to function
adequately (p. 281).
It appears that "heuristic problem solving focuses on the most solution-relevant variables (from the
perspective of the problem solver) in a particular situation and ignores other variables. In that manner a very
complex process can be coped with" (Osmo & Rosen, 1994, p. 123). In addition to using heuristic devices,
human beings need to have knowledge of the world and their specific problematic issue, and the ability to
apply this knowledge in a problem-solving process (DeRoos, 1990, p. 278).

B ASIC ASSUM PTIONS

It remained for Compton and Galaway, in 1975, to elaborate upon and expand the basic model that Perlman
had first conceptualized nearly twenty years before, and to make their thoughts available to social work
students in textbook form. The authors note that their expansion and deepening of the Perlman model resulted
in "extending the problem solving process to groups, organizations, and communities and in broadening our
model to include more emphasis than one finds in Perlman's work on transactions with and change in other
social systems" (1994, p. 49).
As Compton and Galaway have theorized extensively about how problem solving works, much of the
following material will be drawn from their deliberations (1994). The authors note that all of their
assumptions are based on five theories drawn from those related to human development and the transactions
people undertake with the social environment. These theories include systems theory, communications
theory, role theory, ego psychology, and concepts of human diversity (1994, p. 57). Among the many
assumptions they make, one is that problems in living do not represent weakness and failure on the part of
a client, but rather are the outcome of a natural process of human growth and change (1994, p. 44). If
problems are an inevitable part of life, the capacity to solve them is also accessible to people. The process
may be blocked for clients because they lack knowledge, have inadequate resources, or experience emotional
responses that impair their ability to problem solve. However, as part of the problem-solving method, the
social worker consciously works at creating a collaborative relationship that can be used to motivate and
support clients to do the hard work of thinking and feeling through their problematic situation.
The relationship between client and worker in all modalities of practice is a source of encouragement
and creative thinking in the problem-solving process. Of this Compton and Galaway say:

Relationship is the medium of emotions and attitudes that acts to sustain the problem solving process
as practitioner and client work together toward some purpose. Thus ... the problem solving process can
be thought of as operating
 (1)
A.
B. wish
work
Problem
Hepworth
people
D.
Compton GoalPhasefor
isidentification—short-
Exploration—of defined.
andoridentification—as
need?
LarsenWhat resources
outline
the seen
and
the
client's by
are
long-term
client, others,
assumptions
motivation, goals and
stated.
they worker.
make
opportunities, What
andProblem
does
about client
for problem
teaching
capacities. solving as follows:
I. Contact
through
C.
Clearly,
want - Contract—
available?
to aand the
Galaway
PROBLEM
partnership
U SIN make
SOLVING thethat
MODEL
preliminary
G PRO B LEM SO LV IN G TO A CH IEV E
assumption
control isthe
point
restingthat on
inwhile the
nature as
client CH
their andA NG E
own worker
written
ability description
ofitand
each
consists
willlives be able ofto
of
partner problem
communicate
to is linear
solving feeltoabout
clarifying
in
relate
problems,
compete the and
agency's goals,
nature,
communicate resources the
resources,
nt to
application
with andof thethe and
planning,
master
model in (1994,life
other committingreal
implementation.
the tasks is
situations
p. 43).
they to
However,
circular. Insee
further
theof au
any -
thors study
are
as stages, the firm of the
that
the problem. of
the "burden
importan
worker or headwork
client
rational
t; loop (2)
could back to the
liesmotivatiowith
an earlier stage or
practitioner,
n for not the
forward to aalthough
step
client,"
change so
that lies in benefit the
clients
restscould on the
future, if
fromsomelearning the
circumstances
problem-solving
integra - The
require it.
process, is flexibleisthat
tion there no
process
expectation
betweennature,
in
theya must bring
allowing
that knowledge with
system's
considerable
themgoalto and the helping
latitude in In its
interaction.
its hope- Afact,
application.
the position is taken
comfort
modified
by some problem-
imbalanc
summary of
solving
e; (3) thetheorists
Compton and
thatsocial short clients
Galaway's
experience
worker is of of
some
form outline
their
always problems in
the problem-they
living because
engagedmodel
solving
lackin well-developed
follows. The
problem-solving
attempti form
longer
skills.
ng For toexample,
maintains the
Hepworth
have sequence, and
basic
Larsen devote
but some
elaborates ontext a
chapter of
interactio step their
each
to ns outlining or & a
(Compton
method for
transac- 1994, teaching
Galaway,
problem-solving
tions
pp. 59-61).
skills
with to clients
or who
lackamong
this experience
so systems;
that they can
apply
(4) it in daily
interactions
systems
(Hepworth
are open, &
Larsen,
and 1990, pp.
415^424).
input
across
their
boundari
es is
critical
for their
growth
and
change;
(5) while
a system
must
have a
steady
II. Contract Phase
A. Assessment and evaluation
How are problems related to needs of client system?
What factors contribute to the creating and maintaining of the problem?
What resources and strengths does client have?
What knowledge and principles could be applied from social work practice?
How can the facts best be organized within a theoretical framework in order
to resolve the problem?
B. Formulation of a plan of action
Set reachable goals
Examine alternatives and their likely outcomes
Determine appropriate method of service
Identify focus of change efforts
Clarify roles of work and client
C. Prognosis—what is worker's hope for success?

III. Action Phase

A. Carrying out the plan
Specify point of intervention and assign tasks
Identify resources and services to be used
Indicate who is to do what and when
B. Termination
Evaluate with client system accomplishments and their meaning
Learn with client about reasons for lack of success
Talk about ways to maintain gains
Cope with ending of relationship
Review supports in natural network
C. Evaluation
A continual process throughout contact
Were purposes accomplished?
Were appropriate methods chosen to induce change?
What has client learned that can be used in ongoing problem solving?
What can worker learn to help with similar cases?

PROB LEM S W ITH APPLYIN G THE M ODEL

One of the difficulties in applying problem solving to real-life situations is that it is too challenging to
process all of the information called for in the various stages (Osmo & Rosen, 1994, p. 123) and as a
consequence, people choose the solution that best satisfies, although it may be far from optimal. In a more
specific analysis, Johnson and Johnson identify the blocks that exist to using problem solving effectively in
groups. However, with some accommodation, the issues they raise relate to problem solving in all human contexts (1975, pp. 269-
270). Their list follows:

1. Lack of clarity in stating the problem: this step requires time, as the process is bound to fail if people attempt to
solve the wrong problem, or one that is only partially defined.
2. Not getting the needed information: minimal information results in poor problem definition, fewer alternative strategies,
with consequences inaccurately predicted.
3. Poor communication among those involved in the process: communication is central to the entire method from
definition to task allocation, so clarity and comprehensiveness must remain goals of the interchange.
4. Premature choice or testing of alternative strategies: when the process discourages creative thinking and free
expression, a direction which has not been thoroughly discussed might be chosen.
5. Climate in which decisions are made is critical or demands conformity: such a situation violates the self-determination
value of social work and impoverishes the process.
6. Lack of skills in problem solving: people can be trained to use the method in the context of their current problem.
7. Motivation is lacking: people who problem solve must have some need to change their situation and hope that it can be
changed. Pressure to change may come from many sources, but the experience of engaging in the process itself can
generate hope.
 TREA TM EN T: PR IN C IPA L TH ER A PEU TIC CO NC EPTS
In the early conceptualization of this approach, Perlman conceived of problem solving as her contribution to what social casework
should be. In that conceptualization, it was clearly seen as a process rather than a goal and much effort was put into thinking about how
to make the process happen. For her, the process involved an active engagement of the client in recognition and ownership of the
problem. She was strongly influenced by the work of John Dewey and his conviction that learning was problem solving (Perlman,
1957, p. 247). This notion fits very well with Perlman's own conviction that social work practice had to move away from an
overemphasis on pathology to an increased recognition of the health or the strengths the client possessed to deal with the problem.
This was also a good fit with Perlman's original position, in which she did not see the problem as intrapsychic or within the client, but
primarily as a problem or problems in daily living that impeded the level of satisfaction the client experienced in daily activities. Thus,
the problem-solving process is a tool for resolving problems that arise in the course of everyday life (Bunston, 1985) and impede the
level of satisfaction persons experience in their daily activities.

B.
C. Goal identification—short-
Exploration—of and
the client's long-term opportunities,
motivation, goals stated. What
anddoes client
capacities.
work is defined.
wish for or need? What resources are available?
(6) all human systems are purposive and goal seeking (1990, p.
4)
57). systems are open, and input across their boundaries is critical for their growth and change;
1) people
(2) want
motivation to for change rests on some integra tion between a system's goal and its hope-comfort
I. 5)
Contact
A. while
controlPhase
Problem
imbalance; a system must have seen
identification—as a steady state
by client, for its
others, andfunctioning, it isfor
worker. Problem constantly in flux; and
their own
C. lives
(3) the socialandworker is always engaged in attempting to have some interactions or transac tions with or
Hepworth
Contra
amongto and
systems;
feel Larsen outline the assumptions they make about teaching problem
solving as follows:
ct— competent
prelimin
to master
arythein tasks
nature
they see as
as itimportant;
consists
of
clarifyin
g the
agency's
re-
sources
and
committ
ing to
further
study of
the
problem
.
II. Contract Phase
A. Assessment and evaluation
How are problems related to needs of client system?
What factors contribute to the creating and maintaining of the problem?
What resources and strengths does client have?
What knowledge and principles could be applied from social work practice?
How can the facts best be organized within a theoretical framework in order
to resolve the problem?
B. Formulation of a plan of action
Set reachable goals
Examine alternatives and their likely outcomes
Determine appropriate method of service
Identify focus of change efforts
Clarify roles of work and client
C. Prognosis—what is worker's hope for success?

III. Action Phase

A. Carrying out the plan
Specify point of intervention and assign tasks
Identify resources and services to be used
Indicate who is to do what and when
B. Termination
Evaluate with client system accomplishments and their meaning
Learn with client about reasons for lack of success
Talk about ways to maintain gains
Cope with ending of relationship
Review supports in natural network
C. Evaluation
A continual process throughout contact
Were purposes accomplished?
Were appropriate methods chosen to induce change?
What has client learned that can be used in ongoing problem solving?
What can worker learn to help with similar cases?

LIMITATIONS

1. Lack of clarity in stating the problem: this step requires time, as the process is bound to fail if
people attempt to solve the wrong problem, or one that is only partially defined.
2. Not getting the needed information: minimal information results in poor problem definition, fewer
alternative strategies, with consequences inaccurately predicted.
3. Poor communication among those involved in the process: communication is central to the entire
method from definition to task allocation, so clarity and comprehensiveness must remain goals of the
interchange.
4. Premature choice or testing of alternative strategies: when the process discourages creative thinking
and free expression, a direction which has not been thoroughly discussed might be chosen.
5. Climate in which decisions are made is critical or demands conformity: such a situation violates the
self-determination value of social work and impoverishes the process.
6. Lack of skills in problem solving: people can be trained to use the method in the context of their current
problem.
7. Motivation is lacking: people who problem solve must have some need to change their situation and hope
that it can be changed. Pressure to change may come from many sources, but the experience of
engaging in the process itself can generate hope.