Application of Chaos Theory to Social Work

Hudson in 1999 noted that unlike systems theory or general systems theory which appeared in 120 social work articles, chaos theory only appeared in two social work abstracts. Subsequently, over the last decade, chaos or complexity theory appears to continue on the fringe of thinking about social work, in only a handful of literature, at least that is accessible. Interestingly, the little that has been written about complexity theory in the UK is all related to exploring its implications and applications to child protection social work.

Professor Christopher Hudson (1999):

Hudson, an academic in the United States, has recently written a book on Human Behaviour and Complex Systems, which I have not yet read but is based on complexity theory. In 1999 he explored chaos theory and its implications to social work.

Hudson (1999) identified a major problem of chaos theory is that it presents an inability for social work to predict the outcomes of interventions. This is understood as uncertainty and unpredictability is a central characteristic of complex, non-linear and chaotic systems. Unpredictability of interventions has also lead to a similar dilemma in related fields. For example, Hendrick (2009) explained uncertainty "has always been a part of interventions in complex systems it is just that it was very difficult to admit this for personal or professional reasons - an unwillingness to undermine one's own sense of usefulness or control, the pressure of results-dependent funding from donors, fear of it being viewed as an excuse for incompetence or failure - and this has led to unrealistic expectations, less than illuminating evaluations and, in some cases, fantasy strategising."

As previously mentioned, uncertainty emerges as a significant theme in Munro's Review, where she identifies that "child protection work involves working with uncertainty: we cannot know for sure what is going on in families; we cannot be sure that improvements in family circumstances will last. Many of the problems in current practice seem to arise from the defensive ways in which professionals are expected to manage that uncertainty".

Although predicting outcomes of interventions is impossible, Hudson explains that chaos theory can assist in predicting overall patterns, trends and processes in client's lives. The use of the concepts of self-organisation, attractors and feedback processes, for example, is helpful in doing this. Predicting overall patterns and processes can aid in decision making of social work intervention.

Emergence, bifurcation and the edge of chaos is also used as central concepts to understand how change and intervention in social work can be approached from a chaos perspective. The edge of chaos, for example, is regarded as "one of the most important conditions for creativity and effective problem solving" (Richards 1996). This is reflected in Hendrick who also found that the edge of chaos has been incorporated in some problem-solving and mediation approaches in the past. She goes further to cite Wils et al (2006) arguments that it may be necessary to push the system to the edge of chaos in order to create the conditions necessary for change and possibly to induce system transformation.

Hudson concludes in his review that it is "premature to conclude that chaos theory or complex systems represent a new paradigm for social work, if for no other reason than the sparsity of its use in the social work profession to date". However, he stresses that both concepts and methodologies of chaos theory have the potential to extend social work's ability to understand increasingly complex systems, moving beyond the limitations of general systems theory. This includes an understanding of natural processes of change, growth, and the self-organising and emergent properties of complex systems which are found at the edge of chaos. This is something the dated general systems and ecosystems theory is unable to explain.

Dr Irene Stevens and Pat Cox (2008):

Stevens and Cox (2008) from the Scottish Institute for Residential Child Care explore the potential contribution of complexity theory and concepts that have relevance to child protection, in both field and residential practice. They explore the relevance of concepts from chaos theory to understanding child abuse and child protection. These concepts will be revisited in future posts when I will explore and critically reflect on their applications and implications to practice on the ground.

Stevens and Cox also use the perspective of complexity theory to viewing child protection policies as they have developed or emerged over time. They are rightly critical of linear thinking which they argue is fundamental to how serious case reviews have been approached and implemented. Indeed linear approaches is also characteristic of child protection assessment and practice on the ground, "which can lead social service practitioners with a false sense of security".

They argue that complexity theory can help practitioners working to keep children safe, that it offers new ways of working, away from a risk-averse approach. "In conclusion, the authors believe that complexity theory offers tools for understanding and analysing many of the complex adaptive systems within which practitioners operate in protecting children".

Dr Stevens and Peter Hassett (2007)

Stevens and Hassett, in 2007, have explored the application of complexity theory to risk assessment in child protection practice. They focused on using the concepts of non linear dynamics and fractals (a diagramme of risks to illustrate non linear patterns of risk) in order to identify and analyse risks. They also use spatial analysis in approaching risk assessment and explain that the Scottish Institute for Residential Child Care over the last two years have used this and complexity theory to train practitioners in its application.

Stevens and Hassett illustrate the model by applying it to an example in practice which includes the following process:

1. Risk and hazard identification: Approaching risk as multilayered and multifaceted, identifying risks that are present in a situation and constructing a fractal (a diagramme of non-linear dynamics which illustrate how risks are related).
2. Assessing impact and likelihood of harm: For each risk (and sub-branches) that are identified, the potential impact (the severity) and likelihood (of re-occurring) is assessed and quantified (1 - 3).
3. Spatial analysis of risk: Simply put, spatial analysis considers the relevance of space, place and time. Space is the social construct of place (what happens within a place) which aid where and how things happen within specific times. Spatial analysis relates the risks to social circumstances. This assessment gives a picture of the range, degree and circumstances of risks in a situation.
4. Developing a series of quantitative and qualitative statements of risk: This involves analysing the spatial analysis and the likelihood and impact of harm (judgement of seriousness) and deriving a series of statements to inform intervention.
5. Control mechanisms and monitoring: Identifying control mechanisms brings together the highest ranked risks and the spatial anaysis. These identify what is to happen, where and when, who is responsible and how the risk will be monitored and reviewed.

Steven and Hassett conclude that although complexity theory "itself may sound quite esoteric when discussed in isolation" if it is utilised as an analytical tool and as a paradigm, it can provide a much more realistic framework to understand risk and keep children safe.

Thomas Coram Research Unit: University of London (2009)

John Rowlands (2009), a visiting fellow to the Institute of Education, had used complexity theory, in particular the concept of "self organising criticality", that is suggested to underpin the generation of children in need as defined by the Children's Act 1989. He states that complexity theory provides a framework for the phenomena involving the interaction of multiple agents that produce unpredictable outcomes and can not be dealt with by using at linear and reductive analytical methods. He suggests that the population of known children in need could be such a phenomena and provides evidence to support this.

Rowlands (2009) uses secondary analysis of children in need census conducted in England in 2005. The census, well known to social workers at the time, was developed in response to Treasury's concern about the rising costs of children social services and to gain a better understanding of "where and why the money goes". The census required local authorities to survey all the children being worked with during the census week and gather information about the costs and activities related to each child.

Taking the idea of self organisation, Rowlands uses the census data to test the concept statistically. He noted that previously Down (2007) had argued that there appears to be a lack of any published research on the application of complexity theory to social care. Therefore, by using quantitative methods, Rowlands "tries to demonstrate that complexity theory is at work within a dynamic system that gives rise to children in need".

He concludes that the finding are suggestive that indeed complexity theory could be applied and this supports the the desirability of pursuing complexity theory as a means of gaining a better understanding on the dynamics of children in need. He argues against policy development that is based on linear and reductionist understanding and suggests that "research into children’s social care might always provide limited insights because the interactions of agents are too complex

to allow a full description of the efficacy of intervention".

Munro's Review (2010)

As previously outlined, Munro's analysis is based on a systems approach. She does not mention chaos or complexity theory by name but some of the main concepts and themes she is focusing on appear to be based on complexity theory. She focuses on why previous, albeit well intentioned attempts to improve the system have had unintended outcomes. She also applies this to her own review when she states that "in such a complex system as child protection, it is inevitable that any innovations this review recommends will themselves have unexpected consequences as they are put into operation". A wholistic view of the system is argued for.

Munro uses ripple effects and feedback loops to understand how previous reforms have resulted in unintentional outcomes because perhaps to a narrow approach was taken. She illustrates this in a series of diagrammes to a hypothetical understanding of systemic factors in child protection. Interestingly she stresses that the link between variables are no presumption of a linear relationship.

Through the application of feedback loops, ripple effects and requisite variety, Munro suggests how practice can create a self defense mechanism which hides procedural failures. A system's "ability to show that there was compliance allows it to argue that there was due diligence in terms of the procedures used and that, hence, the errors in actual child protection cannot be perceived to be errors in terms of the approach used". Munro's review will be revisited in future posts as more insights are gained by her analysis and her recommendations in the new year.

In conclusion, the increasing use of chaos theory and concepts in recent literature in social work can be seen to be a turning point for advancing theory and its application to practice on the ground. This is significant in a particular social and professional context of child protection social work which can be rightly argued to be on the edge of chaos.

My posts from now identify each concept as I outlined previously, hopefully focusing less on the academics and more on their critical implications and possible applications to practice.

Application of chaos theory: Other disciplines

The most extensive applications of chaos theory have been in the physical and biological sciences. In medicine several researchers have used chaos theory in the study of the brain, nervous system, and perception. Related areas of research application of chaos theory include sleep neurophysiology, neuroendocrinology and psychophysics (Hudson, 1999).

Hudson (1999) further identifies that although the application in psychology appear to be fairly widespread, most of these involve only selected concepts, rather than the methodologies of chaos theory. For example, the use of "butterfly effect" has suggested that "the sources of specific day to day lasting behaviours, as well as the sources of problems and functioning, are not limited only to major events in people's lives, but also include relatively small events, which, over time, can result in significant impact on behaviour" (Duke, 1994). The use of other chaos theory concepts have been more extensively used however, over the last decade, with the formation of the Society for Chaos Theory in Psychology and the Life Sciences and further developments of the theory in psychology and psychotherapy.

Applications in related fields can be found in decision making and organisational behaviour, group process, as well as in education and sociology (Hudson 1999). Recently, from what I have read, there has been increasing application of the theory to international development and to conflict resolution studies.

An extensive but interesting working paper by Dianne Hendrick in 2009 explores complexity theory in relation to peace research and conflict intervention. She critically explores complexity and chaos concepts, including providing suggestions and insights on how these could inform analysis and intervention. This appears very relevant to social work with children and families.

Violence and conflict (whether they occur within societies or families) have similar characteristics, they are both complex and chaotic. In addition, the challenges facing conflict transformation in a wider context is very similar to those facing social workers when protecting children or vulnerable adults. For these reasons, Hendrick's paper will be revisited in more detail in future posts.

Chaos Theory: Key Concepts

In undertaking some amount of reading on complexity and chaos theory, specifically related to social science and social work, it became apparent very early on that there is no unifying theory and that chaos and complexity studies is largely a developing field.

Nonetheless the conceptual framework provided Ramaligam et al (2008) in their working paper exploring the implications of complexity science to humanitarian and development efforts appears to include almost all of the concepts I have read elsewhere and make the most sense. They identify three main sets of complexity science concepts. However, I slightly adapt the framework by including a key concept of self similarity, relevant to social work, within third set that was identified by Hudson (1999).

The key combined key concepts slightly adapted from Ramaligam (2008) therefore are as follows:

Complexity and Systems: The concepts identified relate to the features of systems which can be described as complex.

1. A key starting point is that complex systems are characterised by interconnected and interdependent elements and dimensions.
2. Feedback processes shape how change happens within a complex system, where positive feedback never settles the system into completely predictable patterns.
3. Emergence describes how a complex system emerges, often unpredictably and based on simple rules, from the interactions between the parts to form a whole that is different to the sum of the parts.

Complexity and Change: Concepts related to the phenomena in which complexity manifests itself within systems.

1. Within complex systems, relationships between dimensions are frequently nonlinear, i.e. when change happens, it is frequently disproportionate and unpredictable.
2. Sensitivity to initial conditions highlights how small differences in the initial state of a system can lead to massive differences later; butterfly effects and bifurcations are two ways in which complex systems can change drastically over time.
3. Phase space helps to build a picture of the dimensions of a system, and how they change over time. This enables understanding of how systems move and evolve over time.
4. The edge of chaos describe the transition point between order and chaos within a complex system and one of the most important conditions for creativity and effective problem solving.

Complexity and Agency: Concepts related to the notion of adaptive agents and how behavours are manifested in complex systems.

1. Adaptive agents react to the system and to each other, leading to a number of phenomena.
2. Self similarity involves structures within systems that repeat basic features on several different levels of observations.
3. Self-organisation characterises a particular form of emergent property that can occur in complex adaptive systems.
4. Co-evolution describes how, within a system of adaptive agents, co-evolution occurs, such that the overall system and the agents within it evolve together, or co-evolve, over time.

Before I explore the implications of these concepts in more detail to the work I do in the next few posts I will describe how these concepts have been explored in various other fields, including social work.

Chaos Theory: An Introduction

The idea of chaos can be traced back to ancient Greek, Egyptian and Chinese philosophy. Chaos in ancient thinking was regarded as the birthplace of the cosmos. In the 20th Century chaos returned as a critical concept with the decline of metaphysics and the fundamental critique of science (Schirmacher, 1989).

The most important work foreshadowing the field of chaos studies was done by a late 19th Century French mathematician, Poincare who also first introduced the principle of relativity. Other predecessors included Lewin (considered as the founder of social psychology), Thom (the founder of catastrophe theory) and most significantly Lorenz, who in 1962 discovered the existence of chaotic structures, referred to as "strange attractors", in weather patterns (Hudson, 1999).

However the field of chaos theory developed its identity in the 1970s when the mathematician and biologist, Robert May suggested that seemingly simple equations may represent very complicated dynamics (Hudson, 1999). This concept was first introduced by Alan Turing, when in 1954 he proposed mathematical equations to illustrate the formation of patterns and morphogenesis.

Chaos Theory in its inception was developed to deal specifically with systems characterised by the mathematical notion of "chaos". Chaos, in this sense, refers to "systems which can be found at an intermediate point in the continuum which ranges from the completely periodic and predictable to the totally random, and in which there is a type of order which never exactly replicates itself" (Hudson, 1999).

As chaos theory developed, the approach has been applied to a range of complex, dynamic, and non-linear systems which do not technically qualify as representing the narrow mathematical notion of chaos. This broader field has been variously referred to as non-equilibrium theory, self-organisation theory, nonlinear dynamics or complex adaptive systems, each which "have typically attempted to integrate what is known of the three major classes of processes: deterministic, chaotic and random" (Hudson, 1999).

The most extensive applications of chaos theory have been in the physical and biological sciences, less so in medicine, and in economics, psychology, sociology and conflict resolution studies. While chaotic properties are believed to take part in all major categories of systems (conservative, dissipative and quantum) most work has focused on chaos in dissipative systems, "of which biological and social systems are prime examples" (Hudson 1999). Chaos theory "represent a recognition of the limitations of Newtonian, linear scientific paradigm when applied to complex systems" (Hendrick, 2009).

Hudson (1999) stated that although "enthusiasts for chaos theory have gone as far as to argue that the 20th Century has seen three major scientific revolutions -- relativity, quantum, and most recently, chaos theory -- ... much of social work research continues to draw heavily from GST and even older paradigms". He remains critical that even though chaos theory has received attention in related disciplines, discussion of chaos theory in social work literature is almost non-existent.

I will consider in more detail how chaos theory and its concepts have developed and been applied in social work and related disciplines in further posts. However, in order to have a firmer foundation of what chaos theory is, in my next post I will outline key concepts.

General Systems Theory: A Critique

Hudson (1999) understood the problems with GST are essentially "in many respects a reflection of a failure of social workers to move beyond the broad conceptual application of the theory, to use a range of practical techniques for investigating and simulating systems, such as those used in the field of system dynamics".

Hudson states that one of the most serious criticism of GST is the problem of "assumed equilibrium" which refers to the tendency to over-emphasise system maintenance functions and negative feedback loops (Leighninger, 1977). Although such an assumption is "by no means fundamental to GST" Hudson continues that "those that interpret theory to this extent have tended to look outside, rather than inside systems for the challenges and sources of change and growth".

For this reason Kahn stated that "proponents of decentralisation, community, and participatory control could find their activities in conflict with a systems emphasis" (1973). However, Hunter argues that one of the sources for this interpretation of GST, besides ideology, is a misunderstanding of positive feedback loops, those which amplify small changes for better or worse.

Another criticism of GST Hunter identified is that too much rationality is expected on the part of its users. For example, Drover and Schragge (1977) complained that in a relatively simple situation with 20 key systems, over a million possible relationships are created. Furthermore, "when each set of actors brings a different set of goals and values, the problem of optimising the common good becomes completely intractable". Others shared in the same concerns but point out that it becomes easier to consider subjective experiences, meanings and values within an eco-systems approach.

Hunter summarises that because most social work interpretations of GST are tainted with the problems of "assumed equilibrium" and a lack of operationalisation many complain of the limitations of the theory in dealing with change, growth as well as generating directions for practice.

Further, on the one hand some argue that GST promotes a technical practitioner role, depoliticising practice (thereby promoting conservative and individualistic tendencies). On the other hand, others see GST as reinforcing individual practice, promoting transactional, "goodness of fit" and equilibrium-based solutions between individuals and their social environments.

In the 1980s, Hunter argues that the above criticisms, from both the left and right, "undercut but failed to extinguish interest in the theory". In the mid 1980s a new version of systems theory emerged, which was an amalgamation of GST with concepts from human ecology. The establishment of ecosystems or ecological theory represents important advances for Hudson, especially as the problem of assumed equilibrium appears to have been improved. However, ecosystems focuses "not so much on change, but on individuals abilities to negotiate and compromise with their social environment" (DeHoyos and Jensen 1985).

In addition Hudson the theory has been "traced back by some to Social Darwinism". He explains this is because as long as "change is seen as external to the individual, the concept of social selection ("survival of the fittest")...will continue to underlie the thinking of some practitioners".

Further, GST and, to an extent ecosystems theory, has increasingly come to be seen as a way to expand the medical model to include social environment. The theories has been "co-opted by those whose primary interest is the stabilisation of individual dysfunction, rather than the facilitation of ongoing growth of individuals and communities" (Hunter, 1999).

Hunter concludes that despite these limitations the stage is set for important new theoretical developments in complexity and chaos theory which "have already been discovered in allied fields, but hardly in social work as of yet".

General Systems Theory: An Introduction

It makes sense to start the journey by briefly but critically exploring General Systems Theory (GST). GST is important to understand as its introduction to social work in the 1960s, and its amalgamation with the ecological approach in the 1980s, contributed to social work's limited progress to seek a unifying conceptual framework to guide practice (Hudson, 1999).

In the field of child protection, GST is further important as it informed the development of a UNICEF working paper in 2010 in adapting a systems approach to child protection across countries and cultures. In addition, as mentioned in the previous post, the Munro Review in England is using a systems approach to assess and plan the child protection sector in England.

Further, ecosystems theory is significant to social work practice in the field as it underpins a major approach to the Framework for Assessment of Children and their Families that was introduced in the UK during 2000. The assessment framework is now part and parcel of current child protection social work front-line practice with children in need of protection and support.

Hudson (1999) provides a good critical summary of GST in context of the development of chaos theory. GST integrated the perspectives of findings from social theories from the 19th Century, human ecology, information theory and cybernetics. A system is defined as "a complex of components in mutual interaction".

Hudson outlines that although the concept of GST was introduced in 1937, and first published in 1945, it was not until the 1950s that it was popularised in psychology and subsequently introduced to social work. In the 1960s GST "attained a level of popularity in social work" and the the 1970s saw "a substantial growth in the applications of GST in the profession as numerous social work texts began to include that perspective".

However, by the late 1970s a more critical approach was taken by the adoption of GST in social work, especially in the education of social work. Hudson outlines complaints that GST is far to abstract to inform practice, had no techniques for disentangling the plethora of feedback loops which typically link systems and problems in ideological assumptions. For this reason he explains "unintended and negative consequences have been too commonly the result of programmes of planned systematic change" (Siporin, 1980).

The critiques will be considered in more detail in the next post so for now, I suppose, this can suffice as an introduction to systems theory.

Introduction to Munro's Review

Following Laming's 2009 Progress Report of the Protection of Children in England, Professor Munro was asked by the Secretary of State in June 2010 to conduct an independent review of child protection in the country. Her first report was completed in October 2010. Munro's first aim was to "understand why previous well-intentioned reforms have not resulted in the expected level of improvements". Her final report is due in April 2011 with an interim report due in January 2011. The Munro review, in conjunction with other developments such as the Social Work Reform Board, is expected to fundamentally change child protection social work practice in England, if not also elsewhere.

It is clearly of interest, not only because of the kind of radical change that's anticipated but also because Munro uses a "systems approach" both to analyse what has happened in the past and also to design an improved approach in the future.

I can't say I understand all that's been written in the report but it definitely will feature in this blog primarily because concepts of complexity, uncertainty and unintended consequences (which are complexity theory concepts as far as I understand them which will be explored later) are featured in Mono's analysis of the child protection system.

So this journey begins.

Confidentiality, Respect and Copyright

In this blog I largely aim to relate theory to practice as it's happening on the ground. I write from my own perspective as a practitioner and not an academic. However, the first several posts are largely academic as I focus outlining what written about chaos theory, which is a developing field with some unique and relatively difficult concepts. Subsequent posts will focus on exploring the application and implication of these on practice from my perspective.

I actively invite other inter-disciplinary professionals (including academics) that I may find or that find me to contribute their knowledge and practice experiences by responding to posts and hopefully creating posts themselves. However, if you do share any practice examples or experiences, please fully anonymise as not to identify clients or vulnerable people you have worked with in any way.

In addition, responses should be expressed with respect for others, their viewpoints, lifestyles and more recognised forms such as ethnicity, gender or class. This is not an avenue to express derogatory or discriminatory sentiments.

Finally, this blog ultimately hopes to encourage a genuine learning environment away from the traditional academic restrictions and limitations. There's no fee in joining, contributing or sharing. You are welcome to freely share any ideas with other colleagues generated here if these are not for non commercial purposes, you do not need my permission to do this, but please acknowledge the source. By hopefully contributing your knoweldge to this blog, you are agreeing to the same.