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.