Assessing 'empowerment' as social development

European Journal of Social Work

ISSN: 1369-1457 (Print) 1468-2664 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cesw20

Assessing ‘empowerment’ as social development: goal and process Cristina Pinto Albuquerque, Clara Cruz Santos & Helena Da Silva Neves Santos Almeida To cite this article: Cristina Pinto Albuquerque, Clara Cruz Santos & Helena Da Silva Neves Santos Almeida (2016): Assessing ‘empowerment’ as social development: goal and process, European Journal of Social Work, DOI: 10.1080/13691457.2016.1186008 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2016.1186008

Published online: 26 May 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cesw20 Download by: [Professor Cristina Albuquerque]

Date: 27 May 2016, At: 17:00

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK, 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2016.1186008

Assessing ‘empowerment’ as social development: goal and process Avaliação de ‘Empowerment’ como desenvolvimento social: Objetivos e Processos Downloaded by [Professor Cristina Albuquerque] at 17:00 27 May 2016

Cristina Pinto Albuquerque

, Clara Cruz Santos and Helena Da Silva Neves Santos Almeida

Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Coimbra – Social Work, Coimbra, Portugal ABSTRACT

ARTICLE HISTORY

Empowerment is a concept widely used in several policy documents and is presented, in social work and social care professional universes, as an operative process to reduce vulnerability and to increase the power, or capabilities, of individuals and groups to make choices and to transform these into actions and results. However, to move beyond rhetoric and paternalistic practices, we need to understand what empowerment really means and implies in different contexts, and especially, how to evaluate what has changed (outcomes) or is changing (processes), both on an individual and a collective level.

Received 29 January 2015 Accepted 23 March 2016

RESUMO

O conceito de empowerment é profusamente utilizado em inúmeros documentos políticos, apresentando-se, no universo das profissões de ajuda e do Serviço Social, como um processo operativo capaz de reduzir a vulnerabilidade e de incrementar o poder, ou as capacidades, de indivíduos e grupos na afirmação de escolhas e na respetiva concretização em termos de ações e resultados. No entanto, para superação de retóricas e práticas paternalistas é necessário compreender o que significa e implica efetivamente o empowerment em diferentes contextos e, especialmente, como avaliar o que mudou (resultados) ou o que está em mudança (processos), quer a um nível individual, quer coletivo.

KEYWORDS

Empowerment; social work; social development; bibliographic systematisation and social indicators PALAVRAS-CHAVE

Empowerment; serviço social; desenvolvimento social; revisão bibliográfica; indicadores sociais

Introduction The concept of empowerment, while understood from different angles, either as a goal, a product or a process, and revealing at times some analytical and operational inaccuracy, has nevertheless a fundamental and instrumental potential in the foundation of renewed social and political intervention processes (Gaventa, 2002; Simon, 1994). The relative ambiguity of the concept (especially if we consider it in different cultural and geographical contexts) immediately reveals the influences and connections with rather different and sometimes contradictory theoretical perspectives and socialpolitical movements. In the area of social work in particular, especially in the last two decades, the concept of empowerment has acquired a central place, both in the rhetoric and in the practices of the social CONTACT Clara Cruz Santos

[email protected]

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Downloaded by [Professor Cristina Albuquerque] at 17:00 27 May 2016

2

C. P. ALBUQUERQUE ET AL.

professionals, by valorising the subject’s potential as constructor of their own self and contextual change (Adams, 2008; Deslauriers, 2007; Miley, 1999; Teater, 2010). Some populations have in fact limited choices available or limited possibilities to even consider the possibility of choice. The inequality in terms of power to have an effective political and social voice and to make life-changing choices is influenced by policies, life experiences, personal capabilities and social-economical structures of opportunities. Therefore, social action and research are essential to redesign policies and to implement more effective and innovative social interventions. Such action can increase, on the one hand, the amount of assets that people have at their disposal and can effectively use, and on the other hand, can question and transform the dynamics that reproduce inequalities and exclusion. For this matter, to evaluate empowerment processes and outcomes in different contexts and dimensions, we need to identify and assess social, economic, political and personal indicators. An actionable framework both for action and (critical) analysis is essential to avoid palliative practices and especially to identify the impacts of policies and interventions in concrete situations, as well as to embed these analyses into a larger on-going system for monitoring empowering practices. To build this framework, it is essential that two previous topics are properly addressed and discussed by social professionals: (a) the clarification of the conceptual and practical boundaries of empowerment, and (b) the possibility to identify, measure and monitor the process and the results of empowering projects and practices. This way, the notion of empowerment, more than a self-legitimated buzzword, may be assumed as an operational tool to monitor social interventions and the resulting changes, contributing to the effectiveness of the practices and to the foundations of an effective social change theory. Under these assumptions, in this article, we will discuss some issues about methodological strategies and indicators to monitor and assess empowerment in social work practices, considering it from a holistic perspective. In the second part of the article, we will develop a critical discussion of an empowerment operative framework, in order to propose a (new) complex analytical approach.

Empowerment and social work: critical discussion elements The idea that human beings are able to transform themselves and their lives, so that they are capable of acting for their own well-being, is intrinsic to social work (Mondros & Wilson, 1995; Ninacs, 1995). However, the establishment of social work that promotes true and persistent change, and not only a conjectural and superficial one, must be anchored in the following assumption: an orientation to the promotion of social development (individual and collective) and of policies and structures of opportunities that can ensure the transformation of the ‘ability to act’ into ‘effective action’. In other words, reducing empowerment to the promotion of the ability to act, as seems to happen in the new social-political guidelines associated with coaching, social monitoring or skill training, is a mystification of the effective possibility of conquering and using power in its diverse dimensions.1 Taken to its extreme, it can be a strategy to conceal the causes of structural difficulties or inequalities. As Lee (2001, p. 32) argues, to include ‘political processes, objectives, and transformations along with personal and interpersonal power’ is the way to ‘restore empowerment to its original meaning’. The growth of capital – to think in other terms, to aspire, to conceive, to plan and to act – is assumed as fundamental to obtaining empowering results. In fact, the development of a critical conscience, as an essential component of empowerment, is underlined in the literature. In practice, empowerment is considered as the product of a dialectic between action and reflection. This action integrates a three-fold path: (1) development of a collective conscience (the individual is not the only one to have a problem); (2) development of a social conscience (individual and collective problems are influenced by societal organisation); and (3) development of a political conscience (the solution to the problems requires social change) (Freire, 1972, p. 53; Simon, 1994).


EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK

3

In this sense, if we consider empowerment as the ‘process of enhancing an individual’s or group’s capacity to make purposive choices and to transform those choices into desired actions and outcomes’ (Alsop, Bertelsen, & Holland, 2006, p. 1), we must examine not only the dimension of the ‘capacity to act’, but also the possibility to transform choices into desired outcomes. Considering the proposition of DuBois and Miley (1999), the empowerment process in social work practice, focus the debate on three strategies: the activation of resources, the creation of alliances and the expansion of opportunities. This means that an intervention centred only in an individualised dimension, aimed at the promotion and assertion of capacities, life trajectories and experiences, merely leads to a first stage of the process. Additionally, it demands the analysis of possible changes on the contexts and specific assets to summon or construct. Thus, three dimensions of empowerment processes must be interconnected: (1) the development of a more positive sense of self; (2) the construction of knowledge for a more critical conception of the social and political network of an individual’s life context; and (3) the construction of resources and strategies, or functional competencies, to assure the fulfilment of personal and collective goals (Lee, 2001, p. 34). The analytical framework that we propose is thus based on the assumption that empowerment is connected with expansion of the liberty of choice and action, both at individual and group level, and cannot be dissociated, particularly in the field of social work, from a complex approach to social and political development. From this perspective, we must consider, in the construction and assessment of empowerment, not only individual and subjective strategies and criteria, but also social, political and economic guidelines and indicators.

An operational model of empowerment: indicators The possibility to assess the process and results of empowerment is fundamental in the pursuit of a social-political intervention aimed at the effective autonomy of individuals, groups and communities, as well as for the determination of development strategies and political recommendations. The recognition of the social worker as a privileged intervener in the definition of priorities and orientations for development and in the connection between different intervention levels (for example, from the particular to the general, or the other way round) demands a higher effort in terms of making visible and evaluating what is done and what results are attained. The construction of tools to evaluate empowerment outcomes and to monitor processes is an essential step to: (1) monitor and evaluate the impact of a specific project or intervention, in different dimensions and referring to different groups; (2) contribute to monitoring the local and national political priorities and to tabling recommendations and proposals; and (3) identify, monitor (for example through longitudinal studies) and evaluate the changes, either individually or collectively, in a group or community, or in a global/national/local comparative dimension. It is therefore fundamental to produce on-going and in-depth research that allows the construction and/or validation of an analytical and operational framework. To evaluate empowerment processes, we need to have in consideration, simultaneously, the macro context and the specificity of situations. Nevertheless, some questions, normative and methodological, arise from this exercise: (1) the selection of the dimensions and indicators to consider; (2) the strategies to distinguish between processes and outcomes; (3) the ability to articulate, in a coherent and operational manner, a great volume of multidimensional information; and

4


(4) the consideration and combination of global and specific indicators considering different groups or communities.


The operational understanding of multidimensionality by specific dimensions and indicators may follow two paths (singly or combined): (1) The first path considers a set of a priori dimensions from already studied frameworks (Burchardt, 2006). In this path, the questions associated with the conceptualisation must be carefully addressed since differences in the comprehension of a given concept or indicator in different contexts may lead to biased results. For instance how is the concept of ‘political participation of women’ understood, in different countries and organizations, and for different partners? The conceptions are undermined by social, economic, cultural and political dimensions in the context where social work is developed. So, each dimension must be constructed considering specific indicators. (2) A second path results from the assumption that there is no single and correct answer. Therefore it underlines the need to put forward specific dimensions and indicators through democratic and plural methodological processes of consultation. The ideal strategy might be the articulation of a set of a priori key indicators with more specific indicators defined by consultation with those involved, on different social-professional levels. Like this we can assure a dimension of higher relevance. In other words, even if we consider core elements of empowerment, the definition of variables, indicators and respective weights should have a contextual basis. Without this assumption, the analysis will remain biased and the results limited and influenced by ideological perspectives that restrain both the intervention and the results. The decision about which dimensions are important and/or possible to measure becomes, as such, fundamental, as well as the option concerning on which levels the information should be collected and analysed. In social work intervention, it is essential to consider assessment of empowerment from a multidimensional perspective, for example, some general headline indicators (in different domains) as well as more specific factors. The participation of social workers, from different work fields, as well as of other social professions (sociologists, psychologists, jurists, economists, pedagogues, politicians, among others), of civil society agents and of the clients themselves, is crucial in the production of adequate tools to evaluate the results of empowerment and to monitor its processes. The collection and analysis of data should thus involve a mixed-methods approach. The introduction of a research-action culture in social organisations is an important element to enlarge the social contribution and recognition of social work. A mixed-methods approach implies, for instance, the use of inquiry techniques and focus groups, with clients and other stakeholders, and a deeper social diagnosis. Social workers would thus have concrete information about contexts, policies, organisations and (absence of) possibilities. This concrete knowledge can help them to define priorities in the work with service users and, at the same time, to make grounded propositions to alter contexts and policies. For instance in the Ethiopia Women’s Development Initiatives Project (Alsop & Heinsohn, 2005), the specific indicators of empowerment were considered in three asset and opportunity structure domains: the state (with the sub-domains political, justice and service delivery), the market (with the sub-domains credit, labour and goods) and society (with the sub-domains family and community). Some indicators at the state level include education levels; levels of self-confidence; percentage of women who participate in a community group; amount of time passed since joining the group; percentage of women who are members of a political party; laws that treat men and women differently; cases where formal laws contradict informal rules and traditional procedures; and extent to which women are equally represented in district councils (compared with men), among others. According to Ninacs (1995), the general headline components of the empowerment process are participation, technical competence, self-esteem and critical awareness. These components are


5

intertwined like four wires in a cable. Each one reinforces the other, and simultaneously is reinforced. This reciprocal reinforcement is carried out in a continuum depending on multiple variables, although, the way each component influences the other is unclear. It is mainly the interaction of the components that, in Ninacs’ opinion, characterizes empowerment. According to our argument, empowerment implies effective and sustainable change: a change of power crosses personal, economic, political, cultural and social dimensions. So it is an approach that works in balance between processes, rules, norms and behaviours. By mediating empowering policy and empowering practice, social workers can foster opportunity structures and manage development outcomes. So, context has a central position and integrates micro and macro dimensions.


Macro dimensions Empowerment is recognised in the literature as a goal, a process and an outcome, either in an individual or a collective dimension and, according the ecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), concerns different intervention levels (macro, micro and mezzo) and domains (state, market and society) (see Figure 1). Included in a systemic paradigm of intervention, the ecological perspective shaped the interactions needed and the interconexions between the social change perspective from individual and its environment. Following this assumption and, in terms of specific interventions, the diverse dimensions and the various levels are seldom considered in an integrated way and the assessment of the process is frequently mistaken with the assessment of the outcomes, and vice-versa. We take the perspective that empowerment refers not only to individual capabilities to act but also to ‘structures of opportunities’ that determine or influence the choices, relations, procedures and, ultimately, the life that the individuals would like to live (Sen, 1999). An empowerment theory must then necessarily frame the complex and dynamic articulation between the two mentioned dimensions (individual capabilities to act and ‘structures of opportunities’), either in more individualised or communitarian work. Friedman (1992) expresses the circular conception of this process by stating that political empowerment requires a previous and articulated process of social empowerment, as well as, we should add, an individual and local process. This way, empowerment, broadening the choice possibilities and, as such, the individual’s liberty and citizenship, is an ultimate development goal. Public action has, in this area, unequivocal responsibilities: in the definition of development and social rights priorities;

Figure 1. Subdimensions and relationship between macro and micro levels in social work theory and practice. Source: Authors elaboration.

6



in the creation of facilitating mechanisms of citizens’ access to services and information; and in the guarantee of accountability and justice. In other words, especially in the present contexts, social work and social care professionals cannot be limited to a pedagogical and psycho-social support function but must become social entrepreneurs, a macro-micro and micro-macro mediating agent (Figure 1) and a promoter of social and political transformation dynamics. They may then contribute to the establishment and strengthening of the opportunity structures without which empowerment is, in our conception, a mere rhetorical placebo. According to this complex relationship, it is expected that social workers must contribute to the evaluation of public policies and to defining intervention strategies that can lead to more effective individual and collective development processes. To achieve this purpose, two questions must be addressed and appropriately considered simultaneously at analytical and operational levels: (1) the association between empowerment and development, and (2) the differentiation, in the intervention context, between outcomes (including different degrees of empowerment) and the required means or processes to attain them (strategical dimension). Considering the first question, the promotion of real empowerment necessarily assumes the existence of social, economic and political resources that guarantee the implementation of the desired actions and options by individuals, groups and communities. This perspective of freedom and substantive conditions (closely associated with Amartya Sen’s ‘capabilities approach’, 1999) presumes integrated, strategic and political work by social professionals. Going beyond psychological and interpersonal levels allows not only asking the right questions, but also enables a holistic growth that necessarily includes social and political understanding and action (Freire, 1998). In fact, improving the ability to act and exert power is also, or mainly, ensuring that the spaces are available or under construction for the implementation of those conditions. From this perspective, the development and the fight against inequalities are simultaneously a condition and a product of empowerment (Figure 2). Two operative consequences result from this analytical conception: the first one is related to the demand of multidimensionality in the implementation and assessment of empowerment; the second one relates to the demand to work simultaneously on several intervention levels, operating an individual/collective and local/global dialectic (see Figure 1). The search for the balance between effectiveness and quality is therefore fundamental, demanding from social professionals a strengthening of strategic planning, communication, negotiation and social, political and economic mediation. Concerning the second question: the differentiation, in the intervention context, between outcomes and the required means, or processes, to attain them, it is necessary, not only to ensure a clear definition of goals, deadlines and strategies, in the design and implementation phases of

Figure 2. Relationship between empowerment and development. Source: Adapted from Alsop et al. (2006, p. 10).



7

projects and interventions, but also to define additional assessment and monitoring tools. In this strategic way of conceiving practice, it is essential to determine the results and strategies and on what levels. This way, it is possible for instance to adapt the processes and to identify results concerning more specific audiences and, above all, to avoid the risk of hiding the results in the processes, that is, presuming that because an empowering process was deployed it linearly led to the attainment of effective empowering results. For instance clients’ participation in a professional training programme is only an empowering strategy, so, it is not enough to evaluate empowerment results. We can produce more educated and skilled persons but not necessarily more empowered subjects. This means that an empowered subject is not only capable to act (a training programme in fact can contribute at this level). He/she needs also to have the possibility to put his/her knowledge and (new) capacities in action. And for that to happen, social opportunities (structures, organisations, work places, social rights) must be improved or exist. In fact, the exercise of power remains in three abilities: to choose, to decide and to apply. From this perspective, for several authors, power should be materialised into specific actions. It is unanimous that the progressive acquisition of practical and technical knowledge is essential for action. Furthermore, the accumulated success in a given field may reinforce the ability to act in other fields (Mondros & Wilson, 1995). For instance, education frequently gives individuals access to more information and knowledge, thus supporting their ability to identify and critically evaluate alternative options. Nevertheless, it is fundamental that those options really exist. In this sense, empowerment appeals simultaneously to a subjective and to an objective reality. The approach of the opportunity structure that enables the transformation of the ability to act (agency) into effective action becomes thus the crucial element in the selection of empowerment strategies and in their assessment. In other words, to say that a group, individual or community is empowered means stating that they are able to implement choices. This means that it is possible to transform these choices into effective actions and results. The comprehension and assessment of the process and of the outcomes presumes considering that the implementation of the choices is influenced either by the ability to act (agency) of the individuals, groups or communities or by the opportunity structures. In this concept, we include the contexts, formal and informal, in which individuals are inserted (or not) and that influence and are influenced by agency. The analytical framework of empowerment can, therefore, be summarised as it is presented in Figure 3. In effect, as many studies underline, substantive freedom (what the individuals, groups or communities can do, or be) can be limited by the absence or insufficiency of personal resources, but also by the lack, or insufficiency, of responses and assets in the context where the subject operates (due to economic, social, political, organisational, cultural and environmental factors). So, we must consider the connection between the life domains of the individual (for instance, the state, the market and the society), each of them divided into sub-domains and different levels of analysis (macro, mezzo and micro). In each domain, it is important to identify some analytical elements that may influence people’s agency: (a) in the state domain: are political, civil and societal rights assured to all people, namely in education, health and employment? Are the conditions of equality respected? Is the justice system independent and efficient? Is service provision, in basic areas, accessible, with quality and accountable? (b) in the market domain: are there labour opportunities according to qualifications? Are there requalification opportunities for people with labour integration difficulties? Are the wages fair and adequate to live with dignity? Is there a third sector that is strong and complementary to market and state efforts? (c) in the social domain: are institutions open to citizens participation? Are there power structures and processes identified? At what level actions and processes are constrained and by whom? Are there social movements and associations that promote alternative forms of participation and for whom?


8


Figure 3. Empowerment analytical framework summarised. Source: Narayan (2002, p. 20 (adapted)).

Under these assumptions, we can identify, from an analysis of various indices of well-being, a set of structural indicators that can guide social workers assessment to the conditions available (opportunity structure), in a given context, and for certain groups (Figure 4). As Burchardt (2006) states, many dimensions of empowerment are very difficult to evaluate due to the imprecision they may assume. This imprecision can be associated with the scale of analysis (for instance, it is very difficult for a social worker to completely evaluate personal impacts of empowerment processes on clients), or could even be related to the complex combination of objective and subjective factors.2 Despite these difficulties, we still consider it relevant to assess empowerment processes and outcomes. It can give social workers important information to guide the establishment of action priorities and to evaluate crossover impact. Figure 5 presents our analytical model to conceptualize empowerment in social work: an empowering practice based on a consistent diagnosis and project work. Working with people to propose and build structures of opportunity is essential to conceive empowered policies and society. Empowerment is a product of the interaction between five axes: ends; time; space; actors and methodologies. They have different roles: ‘ends’ organizes all the action; ‘time and space’ fosters or creates constraint in change processes; ‘actors’ (professionals, organisations, politic agents and

9



Figure 4. General indicators to evaluate and monitor empowerment. Source: Adapted from Hermann (2003), cited in National Report about Social Quality for the European Network Indicators of Social Quality (Baptista, Perista, & Perista, 2005, p. 17).

10



civil society agents) can mobilize, close or open social and political alternatives. Finally the methodologies of intervention and research enable citizens’ participation and, in doing so, create value by the development of skills and competences, give visibility to the population’s expectations, promote the possible change and suit it to the population and to the other context’s figures. This proposal is multidimensional, embodied in a systemic approach and grounded in complexity theory. In this sense, it is important as a theoretical framework that might improve the debate about how to really operationalize ‘empowerment’ as a consistent social work strategy. But first, the two last axes: ‘actors and methodologies’ have an important role in defining a consistent instrumental and structural practice approach by combining the different analysis of the assets (psychological, informational, organisational, material, social and political). For different factors, geographical, social, economic or cultural, the opportunity to implement the desired choice may not exist, or if it does exist, may not be appropriate due to conditioning factors other than the will or desire to make it real.

Figure 5. Analytical model to conceptualize empowerment in social work. Source: Elaborated by authors.


11


To take the case of a rural woman in the hills of Nepal who wants to send her daughter to primary school, if a school does not physically exist within walking distance, she has no option. It may not matter that the formal opportunity structure – in this case a policy on education for all – exists. If the asset of a local school is not present, the opportunity for that woman to make a choice does not exist. (Alsop et al., 2006, p. 17)

This structural dimension is frequently hidden in the social care intervention that tends to consider the promotion of the ability to act as the only synonym of empowerment. Two (un)expected effects may result from this restrictive approach of empowerment: (1) The first is centred on the assumption of responsibilities of the subjects in the process of selfconstruction and self-guidance, referring to the subjects’ work of self-production and self-appropriation of their personal, social and professional experiences and trajectories aiming at social inclusion. The recent introduction of managerialism in care services, in a sort of ‘McDonaldization’ of social work (Dustin, 2007), not only prevents action on the structural factors, but also hampers professionals’ intervention with service users to enhance their critical self-reflexion and capacity to act autonomously. The amount of time spent on administrative and quantifiable tasks takes time away from deeper and consequential work with clients. In this context, social workers themselves feel disempowered. If simultaneously we consider the budgetary constraints and the complexity of the current problems, we understand the pitfalls in which contemporary social work is trapped and the difficulties to assure a real empowerment of clients. The social-professional role may consist, in this perspective, of a process of social counselling that, at its extreme, may, simultaneously, wear out and self-reproduce a discourse of integration impossibilities. Many authors (for example, Cantelli & Genard, 2007) have presented evidence, in this argumentative line, of the psychologisation risks in social work practices and the progressive erosion of integrative and social-pedagogical teleological guidelines. In this perspective, the constraints associated with institutional, cultural and axiological factors, as well as the lack of effective opportunities and resources to allow the choice and the transformation of that choice into real results, can easily be forgotten. This fact is even more accurate in work with the multifaceted disadvantaged social work populations. (2) The second effect is associated with the linear evaluation of the participation process and the real use of opportunities. The use of a resource (subjective or objective) may not depend (exclusively) on the will of the individuals and groups considered, but on other factors, for instance associated with their cultural and axiological universe. These factors are frequently overlooked in the analysis of the process and results of social projects and interventions, leading to necessarily biased evaluations. Let us look again at the example about the choices of the Nepalese mother: If the school exists, does the Nepalese woman choose to send her daughter there? She may or she may not. If she does not, an analysis of the reason would involve documenting the interplay between her assets and her opportunity structure. She may choose not to send her daughter to school because her financial assets are insufficient: for example, she cannot afford shoes the child would need to walk to school or she cannot pay the bribe the teacher levies. She may also not use the opportunity because her mother-in-law, with whom she lives, strongly feels that the child is of more use herding the goats. (Alsop et al., 2006, p. 18)

To consider empowerment as a product and a process, assuming a complex connection between structure of opportunities and agency, is to consider also additional challenges to social work practice, and it has obvious impacts in the way that empowerment might be evaluated. As Adams states (2008, 169), ‘empowerment is not merely a “good” like other economic assets, or a skill to be tacked onto other social work skills in working with people, in isolation from contexts of both the worker and the service user’. Empowerment as an approach to social justice and inclusive participation underlines that the ideal of an ‘empowering society’ resides in the commitment between ‘empowering citizens and practitioners’. Thus an ‘empowering practice’, capable of strengthening the connexion between inclusion, participation and social justice, necessarily presupposes a personal, social and political implication.

12


Final remarks


The operative framework that we propose puts in the forefront the main challenges for a social intervention focused on empowerment: (1) the long time scale, as a critical factor in any intervention with this goal; (2) the asymmetric power in the relationship between people and professionals (Dodd and Gutierrez, 1990, cited in Simon, 1994, p. 156); (3) the structural dimension of oppression, with the need to identify, to understand and to deconstruct the oppression factors and the points that can block participation; (4) the transmission of empowerment. Ninacs (2006) recognizes that by encouraging the acquisition of a critical awareness, individuals will be better able to apply the learning carried out in other life situations; and (5) participation in personal, communitarian and political domains. The sense of citizenship that implies participation in democratic life and the exercise of rights should be encouraged in an intervention that seeks to develop the ability and the possibility to act, without which it is not possible to speak of empowerment (Ninacs, 2008). Faced nowadays with the challenges of complexity, uncertainty and risk, social work needs to build new skills, new dynamics and a deeper understanding of personal trajectories and of the power connexions within communities, organisations, state and market institutions (Faleiros, 1996, p. 22). Social workers need to further develop their critical ability in relation to political and economic institutions as well as their capacity to think and to act strategically in order to deal effectively with present and future problems (Faleiros, 1996, p. 16). So, the adoption of a strategic planning logic is fundamental. The setting of goals weighted in advance and the identification or construction of paths to reach them, either through the promotion of abilities of individuals, groups and communities, or using hybrid dimensions to construct and/or consolidate a structure of opportunities, appears to be the way to a theory of change based on empowerment. In this context, a social work able to monitor its practices, measure quantitative and qualitative results, organize synergies, develop research and disseminate the results of these evaluations will be a truly progressive and strategic social work.

Notes 1. ‘Power over’ – ability to influence the thought and the behaviour of others and to access available resources and processes, and the ability to influence its distribution; ‘Power to’ – take decisions and make own choices and the ability to put them into practice; ‘Power of’ – surveying and resisting the power of others, if necessary (Riger, 1993). 2. There are on the World Bank website a series of subjective measures of agency (‘measures that capture peoples’ self-evaluation of whether or not they are free to act as agents’, Alsop & Heinsohn, 2005, p. 8), as well as literature on measuring social capital (www.worldbank.org/socialcapital).

Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors Clara Cruz Santos has a Ph.D. in Social Work and is professor of Social Work at the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences of the University of Coimbra. Actually, she is Member of the Executive Committee of EASSW and the coordinator of the Social Work undergraduate course at the University of Coimbra. She is an associated researcher at the Interdisciplinary Center of Social Sciences of the Nova University of Lisbon (CICS.NOVA). Email: [email protected].


13

Cristina Pinto Albuquerque has a Ph.D. in Humanities (Specialty in Social Work and Social Policy) by the University of Fribourg, Switzerland (2004). Actually, she is Professor of social work, social policy and social entrepreneurship at the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences of the University of Coimbra (PT), where she coordinates the Interuniversity Ph.D. in Social Work (University of Coimbra and Catholic University). She is an integrated researcher at the Interdisciplinary Center of Social Sciences of the Nova University of Lisbon (CICS.NOVA) within the research group on Inequalities and Social Action. E-mail: [email protected] Helena Da Silva Neves Santos Almeida is a professor and researcher at the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences of the University of Coimbra (Portugal), Ph.D. in Social Work from the University of Fribourg (2000, Switzerland) with a thesis on Social Mediation. Actually, she coordinates of the Master in Social Work and a consultant of the Foundation for Science and Technology in the framework of applications for doctoral and post-doctoral research. She is an associated researcher at the Interdisciplinary Center of Social Sciences of the Nova University of Lisbon (CICS.NOVA). E-mail: [email protected]


ORCID Cristina Pinto Albuquerque

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4194-8554

References Adams, R. (2008). Empowerment, participation and social work. BASW practical social work. Series Editos, Jo Campling. 4th ed. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Alsop, R., Bertelsen, M. F., & Holland, J. (2006). Empowerment in Practice. From analysis to implementation. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Alsop, R., & Heinsohn, N. (2005). Measuring empowerment in practice: Structuring analysis and framing indicators. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Policy Research Working Paper 3510. Baptista, I., Perista, P., & Perista, H. (2005). ‘Social quality’ the Portuguese national report. European Network Indicators of Social Quality (ENIQ). Lisboa: CESIS. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Burchardt, T. (2006). Foundations for measuring equality: A discussion paper for the equalities review. London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion/ London School of Economics. Cantelli, F., & Genard, J. L. (coord.) (2007). Action Publique et Subjectivité. Paris: Reséau Européen Droit et Société/ Maison des Sciences de l’Homme. Deslauriers, J.-P. (2007). Cadre de référence pour l’appropriation du pouvoir dágir personnel et collectif. Outaouais: Centre d ´Étude et de Recherche en Intervention Sociale (CÉRIS), Université du Québec – Outaouais. DuBois, B., & Miley, K. K. (1999). Social work: An empowering profession. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Dustin, D. (2007). The McDonaldization of social work. Aldershot: Ashgate. Faleiros, V. d.P. (1996). Social work: Present issues for the future. Social Work and Society Journal, 50, 9–39. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Porto: Afrontamento. Freire, P. (1998). Teachers as cultural workers. Letters to those who dare to teach. Boulder, CO: Westview. Friedman, J. (1992). Empowerment. The politics of alternative development. Cambridge: Blackwell. Gaventa, J. (2002). Exploring citizenship, participation and accountability. Institute of Development Studies Bulletin, 33(2), 1–14. Lee, J. A. B. (2001). The empowerment approach to social work practice. Building the beloved community. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Miley, K. K. (1999). Empowering processes for social work practice. In Shera, Wes e Wells, Lilian (Ed.), Empowering practice in social work: Developing richer conceptual foundations (pp. 2–12). Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc. Mondros, J. B., & Wilson, S. (1995). Organizing for power and empowerment. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Narayan, D. (2002). Empowerment and poverty reduction: A sourcebook. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Ninacs, W. A. (1995). Empowerment et service social: approches et enjeux. Service Social, 44(1), 69–93. Ninacs, W. A. (2006). Empowerment: Réflexion sur quelques principes clés. Québec: Cooperative La Clé. Ninacs, W. A. (2008). Empowerment et intervention: Développment de la capacité dágir et de la solidarité. Québec: Les Presses de ĺUniversité Laval. Riger, S. (1993). What’s wrong with empowerment? American Journal of Community Psychology, 21(3), 279–292. Hertfordshire: Springer. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Simon, B. L. (1994). The empowerment tradition in American social work: A history. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Teater, B. (2010). An introduction to applying social work theories and methods. Berkshire: Open University Press.