Slowness Of Speed Of Propagation
Just to explain the graph in the previous post, if something new is developed in, say, car manufacturing, it becomes standard, relatively quickly, in every car manufacturer plant in the world. In other words, the transfer of the idea to practical use is usually fast.
It is also relatively easy (though not quite as fast as the engineering field) to roll out a new method of teaching mathematics or history, or a new medical procedure, or a farming technique, because there is quite a lot of reductionism in the process of rolling out such changes.
If, however, a new development happens in child protection or social type work the speed of propagation is often very slow – if it propagates at all. Also, what becomes practice might be different to what the new development originally intended!
For example, Person Centred Therapy which will be described shortly emerged in the mid to late 1940’s but its value is still not really acknowledged in mainstream psychiatry or even social work – where its application would have undoubted benefits. Also, where it is practiced, fidelity to the original person centred approach is patchy. For example, congruence and empathy are usually present – which is great – whereas practitioners often struggle with the vital element of unconditional positive regard.
Or, take Systems Theory that is described in the previous Chapter. The necessity to look at human problems systemically is posited in literature, education, journal articles and many academic courses on social work, family therapy, social care work, psychotherapy and even psychiatry.
However it seems to be impossible for statutory entities to appreciate the value of systems theory to the extent that it is applied, beyond a vague aspiration – the current phrase is joined up thinking – in strategic planning in supporting families in our Focus Group.
Attachment and relationship are two fundamental necessities for effecting change in humans in distress, yet they are practically ignored when it comes to actions by First Sector Agencies —- (remember these)?
Why is propagation from development to practice so slow in the field of family support work, social work, and similar fields?
(In Chapter Five, The Family Support Shamrock, this is dealt with in some detail). Just for now, I believe that some of the reasons are:
1. The Pillars’ lack of understanding of (and lack of acknowledgement of) the complexities of the work as I discussed at length above.
2. The cultural dimension of the work – changing a culture is always a slow process – I will be coming back to this later.
3. The prejudices that abound within the Pillars towards one-way knowledge flow that inhibit inclusion of the opinions of those closest to the problems – i.e. experts in the Focus Group.
4. Prejudice that we practitioners have that is unconscious, i.e. that we are not consciously aware of. (See paragraph below).
And, very importantly;
5. Acting on research recommendations might upset the status quo – and challenge vested interests.
In 3 and 4 above, and also in the process of implementing recommendations, (5) there are some differences worth noting between the worlds of technology and community work (between the mechanical world and the psychological world) when it comes to prejudice and challenging vested interests in decision making – and real challenges for practitioners.
The Influence Of Unconscious Prejudice
Our prejudices, obviously, will influence our opinions. Our opinions in turn determine decision making in respect of choices we make.
Just to explain what I mean; an engineer or mechanic might like a certain country, so he is favourably disposed to all things within that country including their cars. (Or he may be getting back-handers to promote certain cars).
If a car manufactured in his favourite country is flawed in some way he may be blind to the flaws because of his prejudice. But eventually the flaw will manifest in the car not working properly. If a new part or process from another country becomes available, and it works much better than the one from his favoured country, it will be adopted very quickly.
Higher up the management line, a decision maker’s obsession about sticking to his own opinion because of his prejudice is undoubtedly challenged by the certain fact that a machine won’t work properly, no matter how compliant the staff beneath him are to his wishes or even his insistent influences [1].
To sum up, because flawed decisions made in the world of technology will eventually be found out, persistence with continual failure (or, to put it another way, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result) is not that common in the technological world. In the world of community work and protection of vulnerable people in general it is far more prevalent.
To give an example of how prejudice can influence decisions in the world of helping people, I (the practitioner) might like, or be drawn to, some trait or personality, such as resistance to authority. (I may be drawn to this trait unconsciously because I have some unresolved rebellious tendency myself).
I may thus unconsciously, through what I bring to a person’s attention (or not, as the case may be) affirm behaviour that leads to his resistance to authority being reinforced – even though this might not be what is needed for his growth at all!
I, the decision maker, am allowing my prejudice (which is in my unconscious – so I am not aware of it) to influence my choices.
Unlike the car that doesn’t work, I may never be found out – but my error may manifest in the individual’s enduring oppositional behaviour that continually jeopardises his progress in accessing practical benefits for himself.
To make matters worse, if a new idea comes along that challenges my prejudice I may feel threatened by it and dismiss it immediately because it is not mine – and, because there is no certain proof that my method doesn’t work, the new idea may never be adopted.
That is an example of unconscious prejudice – of which we are not aware – slowing down speed of propagation. It is obvious that it will be potentially more harmful higher up the management line where people have responsibility for planning and allocating resources – because it will affect a higher number of people.
(I will discuss how we might become alert to such prejudices in the Sub-Chapter on Supervision later).
[1]. Amazingly, bureaucrats within the Pillars – (politicians, academics, public servants etc.) – will often be so biased that even technological developments that don’t work properly are sometimes persisted with.
