As I have recently argued (Dover, 2023): “Social work is already striving to bridge the micro and macro divide (Abramovitz & Sherraden, 2016). Will the profession now address the conceptual problem of eclecticism (Tucker, 1996) by linking the theories of human need with theories of human rights and social justice and with a limited set of key theories with strong social work roots, such as empowerment (Collins, 2000; Emmel, 2017; Gilbert, 1974; Gutiérrez, 1990; Gutiérrez et al., 1998; Simon, 1994; Solomon, 1976), ecosystems (Gitterman et al., 2020), theories of role relationships and social relationships (Marwell & Hage, 1970; Nunes et al., 2022), the other mini-theories of SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2017), and emerging social justice–oriented forms of behavioral approaches (Jason et al., 2021; Saini & Vance, 2020)? Can social workers develop a combination theory of social work practice that is pluralist (but non-eclectic) and needs, rights, and justice focused (but non-monist), using Traub’s (2020) need-based social justice theory development method? Robert Bremner (1956) said, “Human need is a continuing fact, which each age discovers, or thinks it discovers, afresh” (p. xiii). Do we now have such an opportunity again?”

 

Social workers engage client systems of all levels in professional practice aimed at a mix of micro, mezzo and macro level interventions; assess guided by a combination of ecosystems theory and theory of human need, with specific attention to the client’s experience of human injustice and the nature and quality of their role relationships; intervene using a range of methods and modalities linked squarely to advocacy, in order ensure that clients are empowered to pursue their aspirations for human liberation, and finally evaluate their practice, by examining the process of the practice decisions they made in their work with their client and nature of the outcomes of their work with the client, theorized in terms of changes in quality of life, social participation, and avoidance of serious harm.

 

All helping professionals in the interprofessional team, consistently with the principles of multidisciplinarity, engage client systems of all levels in professional practice aimed at a mix of micro, mezzo and macro level interventions as appropriate to their profession; assess using ecosystems theory and theory of human need, with specific attention to the client’s experience of human injustice and the nature and quality of their role relationships; intervene using a range of methods and modalities linked squarely to the core practice principle and activity of their profession, in order ensure that clients are empowered to address their human needs and pursue their aspirations for human liberation, and finally evaluate their practice, by examining the process of the practice decisions they made in their work with their client and nature of the outcomes of their work with the client, theorized in terms of changes in quality of life, social participation, and avoidance of serious harm.

 

Such a theory can support comparative research on the distinction between the interventive approaches of the various interprofessional team professions. The goal of this theory and research will be to explain the generic nature of professional helping. The theory posits that all helping professions can base their unique principles and activities on five key theoretical perspectives: ecosystems theory, human need theory, human injustice theory, empowerment theory, self-determination theory’s non-needs theory mini-theories, and role theory (with particular attention to theories of personal and social relationships, including role relationship theory and theories of intersectionality.)