Week10 Blog

O R I G I N A L P A P E R

Social Worker’s Use of Self

Andrea Reupert

Published online: 26 October 2006 � Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Abstract Although social worker’s use of self has

been conceptualized in different ways throughout the

literature, there appears to be a lack of research

regarding how social workers describe and involve the

self that they bring to their therapeutic and non-

therapeutic work. Accordingly, seven social workers

were interviewed about their experience of self. Par-

ticipants described the self that they brought to their

work as individualistic, though at the same time

stressed the importance of self when interacting with

others. The processes involved in the use of self were

highlighted, which related also to the different ways

clinicians had of being self-aware.

Keywords Use of self � Therapy � Social work

Introduction

The recognition that social workers bring more of

themselves than their professional persona has been

discussed in different ways throughout the social work

literature. While it is outside of the scope of this article

to provide a thorough analysis of the term ‘self’ (see

instead, Muran, 2001), Davies (1994) description pro-

vides the framework used here, which describes a

worker’s self in terms of ‘an identifiable person... her

idiosyncrasies... her height, her age, her sex, her ethnic

origins, her temper, her energy, her prejudices—these

are the qualities she has to work with, for better or

worse’ (p. 174, 175). Similarly, some describe a social

worker’s self in terms of an instrument, for just as

artists use paint and carpenters use a hammer, the self

of the social worker, such theorists argue, is the

primary instrument or tool he or she has to facilitate

change (Elliott, 2000; Heydt & Sherman, 2005).

Others have drawn attention to the processes

involved in the use of self. For example, while England

(1986) suggests that theory is important in shaping and

informing workers’ practices, their work will ultimately

be expressed through intuitive processing. He explains

this in the following manner:

The worker’s choice will be guided –– to an extent

–– by his formal learning of relevant knowledge,

ideology and philosophy, but the specific pro-

cesses will be one which is intuitive...They may

reflect this learning, but his perception is likely to

be as much influenced by his previous colloquial

learning as by his professional education (Eng-

land, 1986, p. 29).

Similarly, Cournoyer (2000, p. 35) describes the

worker’s self as a filter or ‘medium’ through which his

or her knowledge, attitudes and skill are conveyed:

‘Because social work practice involves the conscious

and deliberate use of oneself, you become the medium

through which knowledge, attitudes and skill are

conveyed...’

Implicit in a clinician’s involvement of self is that its

use will be positive and/or directed at facilitating

functional change (Sheafor & Horejsi, 2003), rather

than self-gratifying for the clinician (Davies, 1994). The

literature on countertransference demonstrates the

potential for the clinician’s personal unresolved issues

A. Reupert (&) School of Education, Charles Sturt University, Locked Bag 588, Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia e-mail: [email protected]

Clin Soc Work J (2007) 35:107–116

DOI 10.1007/s10615-006-0062-4

123

to impact negatively on practice (see, for example,

Langs, 1982). Accordingly, an often argued prerequi-

site for the therapeutic use of self is self-awareness,

involving an ability to accurately perceive one’s emo-

tions, beliefs and motivations (Neuman & Friedman,

1997). While he does not detail the process by which

this occurs, England (1986, p. 39) argues that

Social work is a matter of intuitive understanding

but it must be intuition which is unusually sound,

unusually fluent and accessible and subject to

unusually careful evaluation.

Extending the analogy of the social worker’s self as

an instrument, Heydt and Sherman (2005, p. 28) suggest

Just as artists clean their paintbrushes and fire

fighters inspect their equipment to keep their

instruments in perfect working order, every social

worker needs to examine his or her own attitudes,

personal habits and interactional patterns in order

to enhance the conscious use of self and become

the most effective instrument of change possible

for as many of their clients as possible.

Based on social constructionist principles, Yan and

Wong (2005) present an alternative model of self-

awareness, particularly as it pertains to competent

cultural practice. Drawing on Kondrat’s work (1999),

they argue that a social worker’s self can only be

understood in relation to others. Rather than examin-

ing one’s self objectively, a stance they argue is

theoretically not possible, Yan and Wong (2005) argue

that the self of the social worker can only be under-

stood as mediated through language and as constantly

and actively constructed by both the clinician and his

or her clients. Thus, they continue, social work, and in

particular cross cultural work, becomes a site where the

client and social worker negotiate and communicate to

co-create new meanings and relationships.

Mostly, in the social work literature, the use of self is

discussed in relation to the therapeutic environment.

For instance, in their interviews with experienced

clinicians, Coady and Wolgien (1996) report that ‘the

therapist’s contributions to the alliance... rival the

importance of the client’s contributions’ (p. 312) with

one participant stating, ‘The most important factor that

I bring to therapy is myself’ (p. 317). Others agree, and

have described how their own use of self was important

in the establishment of the therapeutic alliance and for

influencing therapy processes (Edwards & Bess, 1998;

Elliott, 2000).

Jacobson (2001) makes the point however that a

social worker’s use of self needs to be not only

addressed in therapy, but also considered in non-

clinical activities. She argues that

...although key to therapeutic practice, such

efforts to ‘know oneself’ have not been empha-

sized as a foundation for nonclinical social work

activities, such as income maintenance work,

employment training, child welfare, or nutritional

support (Jacobson, 2001, p. 55).

Similarly, Lee (1983) describes the importance of

self when working with human service organizations

such as schools, in terms of maintaining credibility,

connecting with an organization’s goals and establish-

ing effective working relationships with different per-

sonnel. Additionally, Heydt and Sherman (2005) stress

the importance of social worker’s use of self at micro-,

mezzo- and macro-levels. Thus, the application of self

needs to be considered not only in the one-to-one

relationship with a client, but also when working as a

group therapy facilitator, agency director or grassroots

community organizer (Heydt & Sherman, 2005).

Overall, however, most of the discussion and

research in the area of social worker’s use of self has

focused on the therapeutic environment (Coady &

Wolgien, 1996; Edwards & Bess, 1998; Elliott, 2000;

Goldstein, 1994; Reupert, 2006). To date, there have

been no available studies that have investigated how a

group of social workers describe and experience the

self while working therapeutically as well as non-

therapeutically. Thus, the aim of the present study was

to interview social workers about their perception and

experience of the self they bring to their social work

practice, rather than their views on clients or work-

places. Given the inevitability of self across theories

and professions (Reupert, 2006), such information is

seen as potentially useful information for future social

work research, education and supervision.

Methodology

A qualitative approach to data collection, analysis and

interpretation was employed as a means to tap clini-

cians’ personal and subjective meanings regarding the

‘self’ that they bring to their work. Within this

framework, interviews were conducted in order to

allow for the negotiation of meaning between each

clinician and the researcher. Letters of invitation were

sent to local social workers advising them of the nature

and purpose of the study. These introductory letters

also posed several key questions that were used in the

interview, so that potential interviewees could make an

108 Clin Soc Work J (2007) 35:107–116

123

informed decision about whether to participate, as well

as providing an opportunity for reflection before the

interview. The researcher contacted participants fol-

lowing receipt of their permission forms to arrange a

suitable interview time and place. Consequently,

interviews were conducted with seven social workers

(two men and five women) with a range of experiences,

from one social worker being in her first year of work,

and another having nearly 20 years of work experi-

ence. All reported having therapeutic and non-thera-

peutic responsibilities, such as organizing professional

development, accommodation placement and running

support programs. Participants worked in a variety of

settings including education, mental health, hospital,

youth and community development. Theoretical influ-

ences were broad and included humanism, family

therapy, psychoanalysis and Buddhism. Interview

questions were framed around clinician’s perception

and experience of self, with sample questions includ-

ing, ‘how do you describe the self that you bring to

your work?’, and ‘how does the self that you bring to

your work impact on that work, if at all?’.

As this is an exploratory study, constructs emerged

directly from the data. Data analysis was undertaken in

two parts: intra-interview analysis and then across-

interview analysis. Intra-interview analysis occurred

with each interview transcript, in which individual

themes were identified. Then, the original interview

transcript and the researcher’s identification of core

themes were sent to each participant with a request for

feedback, as a means of validating participants’ expe-

riences (Moustakas, 1994). After incorporating partic-

ipant feedback, interview analysis was then considered

across individual transcripts. Generally, for ideas shared

across more than one participant, responses were

grouped into specific themes. However, given the low

number of participants, and when salient to the research

questions, a category was formed and subsequently

reported from the responses of only one participant.

These categories had internal convergence as well as

external divergence (Guba, 1978; Marshall & Ross-

man, 1999; Patton, 1990), so similar responses were

grouped together under a category, but categories were

also distinctly different from each other, so that

significant overlap did not occur (Guba, 1978). In this

way, commonalities and differences across participants

were identified.

Findings

On the whole, participants appeared interested

and responsive about the subject matter. On several

occasions, participants requested a second interview in

order to discuss the topic further. Several participants

said that they rarely were given the opportunity to talk

about themselves in their work lives and so welcomed

the opportunity to do so, in the interviews. Findings are

organized into four main areas: (1) descriptions of self,

(2) inevitable presence of self, (3) self enactments and

(4) the different processes involved in clinician’s use of

self.

Clinicians’ Description of Self

Clinicians described the self that they bring to their

work as individualistic, somewhat relational and as

including both personal and professional elements.

Individualistic

All participants described the self that they brought to

their work as defining, central and individualistic.

Representative comments include:

The self that I bring to my work is me... who I

am... the individual that is (name) for better or

worse...

I think who I am as a person... this constitutes the

way I personally do things, and see things...

For participants, this unique and individual self

consisted of their thoughts, emotions, values and

beliefs as well as their way of perceiving and inter-

preting the world.

Relational

Five participants described the self as somewhat rela-

tional and defined by others, such as family members,

significant others and the broader social and cultural

context in which they worked. For example, one female

clinician spoke at length about her experiences of peers

and teachers at school and how these past relationships

have shaped the way she works with children in an

education setting. Another female respondent also

spoke about the impact of family.

...my self has been influenced by the family that I

was part of, (and) the other families I’ve been

part of, where I am now, places I’ve been to, that

I feel like I’ve brought bits, away with me...

Rather than passively taking on aspects of her past,

this clinician emphasizes the ‘bits’ she has actively taken

on from her personal history in her definition of self.

Clin Soc Work J (2007) 35:107–116 109

123

While these clinicians discussed how the self might

be defined through a contextual milieu, at the same

time clinicians contested others’ perceptions:

...the context they (clients) see you in, is impor-

tant, I mean, it amazes me that they see you as

having more power sometimes than what you

actually have, just because you work here and you

happen to have an office and they conjure up all

these different ways of being here, whereas if they

had seen me, you know, down the street some-

where I wouldn’t have the same amount of power.

And I don’t you know, have that power, I don’t

subscribe to that at all.

It seemed that while clinicians acknowledged the

impact of others and the environment in the way their

self was described, they refuted many of these repre-

sentations and preferred instead to define the self in

their own way.

Professional and Personal Elements

All clinicians described the self that they bring to their

role in terms of both personal and professional

elements.

It (the self that I bring to my work) includes my

knowledge and theoretical basis as a profes-

sional...as well as my personality, history, philo-

sophical beliefs, practice wisdom and baggage and

bias.

In the main, participants depicted the personal

elements of self as functional and useful. While

clinicians were not saying that they were ‘perfect

people’, clinicians generally described being less

rushed, critical, and judgmental, and more patient

and caring at work, than with most other people in

their life. For example, one female clinician said

I know too that sometimes I feel that I give the

best bits of my self to my clients... I can be kind

and caring and patient... and then go home and

tell my kids that I don’t have time or I am too

tired to help them with their reading...

Similarly, one clinician described how her self has

had to become stronger, and overall more robust to

deal with the pain and grief of clients. Her tolerance

for pain, anxiety and grief has developed over time,

after working with clients, who, for example, had

experienced some sort of trauma.

The Inevitable Presence of Self

All the clinicians reported the inevitable presence of

self in their work, attributable to immediate contex-

tual features such as the surrounding office furniture,

what they looked like, wore, and so forth. One

clinician said

Well, obviously, as soon as a person claps eyes on

another human being there are unconscious

things happening, the person’s physical presence,

their voice, even their odour, whatever, it’s all

happening, so you can’t minimize that.

At the same time however, most emphasized how

they might extend or use their self toward facilitating

change. Accordingly, all participants seemed to distin-

guish between the inadvertent manifestation of self

and the conscientious application of self as a positive

instrument or presence in their work. One participant

made this distinction in the following way.

I think that who I am is revealed in many ways...

(people I work with) get to see the pictures of my

kids, their drawings on the wall, the various things

on my desk, the mess on my untidy desk...all

those things let them know something about me,

without me telling them anything...

Interviewer: And how does this influence (your

work)?

Well it does... of course it does... but there is

really nothing I can do about it... though it must

influence how others see me... (However) I

suppose what I work on is how to use my self in

ways that I know will be useful... I try to think

about what it is about me that I can best offer

others and work from there.

Self-Enactments

Clinicians reported that who they are as people

influenced their work, in varying degrees. At times

the self came through in how they implemented a

technique, that is, patiently, sensitively or carefully. At

other times the technique itself was as a direct result of

self, such as the use of humor or verbally disclosing

something about themselves. Nonetheless, there were

specific enactments in which the involvement of self

were identified, in both therapy and non-therapy

settings, including relationship forming, self-disclosure,

applying theory to practice, humor and being a role

model.

110 Clin Soc Work J (2007) 35:107–116

123

Relationships

All but one of the male clinicians stressed the impor-

tance of self when establishing and maintaining rela-

tionships with others in their professional lives.

(I need to) absorb all the theories, then throw the

books away and encounter people, as they are...

it’s just about being with a human being.

Most explored this issue in terms of the therapeutic

alliance, with one clinician describing using her past

experiences as a point of reference for understanding

what the client might be experiencing.

I suppose that you are hearing what they are

saying and your self and your interpretations of

your own personal experiences will then provide

an aid to you to interpret or to hear another

person’s story.

Verbal Self-Disclosure

All participants at one time said that they had verbally

disclosed something about themselves to clients, work

colleagues and others, though one male clinician

strongly contested the efficacy of self-disclosure when

doing therapeutic work. Self-disclosure statements

varied in intimacy, from highly intimate such as

disclosing an immediate affective state to less intimate,

for instance, describing factual information about

themselves. Statements also differed in terms of when

and with whom they might verbally disclose something.

For example, some said they would only disclose once

they felt at ease with the other person, and one

participant said that she wouldn’t disclose to someone

in authority. Female clinicians tended to disclose more

intimate statements about themselves than male clini-

cians. One of the male clinicians described disclosing by

proxy, for example, disclosing something about himself

but referring to ‘Someone I once knew...’ Rationale for

self-disclosure included normalizing (showing that oth-

ers also have been through the same situation), cred-

ibility (providing the clinician with some authority or

expertise), rapport building (demonstrating empathy

and understanding) and education (for example,

describing how they once managed the same situation).

Applying Theory to Practice

Two clinicians described how their self is important

when transforming theory into practice, with one

reporting that

...we have all done the same similar training,

‘cause we are all social workers if you like, so we

are all coming, hopefully from a theoretical base

of what we actually learn in social work, but we

are all different in the way that we operate

because we use our self, so how I might go around

and build rapport, or how I might operate with

someone might be completely different to my

colleague but that doesn’t mean to say that that is

any less effective or more effective.

Humor

Three clinicians described using humor as part of their

daily interpersonal interactions with clients and others.

One suggested that the use of humor was closely tied to

her ‘personal style’ and while early on in her career she

had felt it was ‘unprofessional’ for her to use humor,

she is now comfortable in its use.

I use humor, hopefully appropriately... I suppose

to relieve tension...my own and others... I’d use

this in therapy and in some meetings that I run, to

break things up a bit, to relieve the boredom or

tension that might be building up...

Role Model

One clinician described how her self provides a

functional role model for the young people she works

with.

...I mean, particularly with young people, you are

modelling a particular style of adulthood, which

they may or may not, wish to respond to, and you

are also modelling a type of interpersonal rela-

tionship that they may form later on...

Process Involved in the Use of Self

Different groups were identified in terms of how much

each clinician considered it appropriate to involve their

self, which related also to the different ways clinicians

had of being aware of their self. These differences

might be placed in three groups across a continuum

from little self-involvement to extensive self-involve-

ment.

The first of three groups consisted of one male

clinician who argued that ideally, there should be little

personal involvement in his work, even though he did

Clin Soc Work J (2007) 35:107–116 111

123

acknowledge that the self that he brought included

other aspects besides his professional knowledge and

expertise. While he reported this stance in terms of his

overall social worker role, he stressed that this was

particularly the case in his therapeutic work.

In most professional counselling circumstances it

is the use of technical skill and the ability to avoid

contaminating the client’s issues with personal

ones, which leads to the best, self-generated

outcomes.

The rationale given by this clinician for the sup-

pression of his personal self was twofold. First, he

considered it important for self-care.

...there is no sense of using up my personal being,

I use up my professional energy but not my

personal being... Now again, some people would

argue that that is false or that that is stressful or

dishonest even, but for me that has been the most

comfortable way to work.

Interviewer: In what way comfortable?

As in looking after myself...

Another reason was based on his belief that

...the essence of good social work, good counsel-

ling or whatever it is that we do, from my point of

view anyway, is that the process is as close to

being purely to do with the client as possible.

Later he talked more about the process of removing

or ‘controlling’ his self:

...my struggle is to control the self, to minimise

the impact of the self, to remove any unconscious

barriers.

Interviewer: Is that possible?

No, I said it was a struggle (laughs)...

Interviewer: So what then makes your role? Like

what do you then do?

Well I’ll make an analogy here [with] a chemical

catalyst. As you know in chemistry, you can have

two chemicals which independently will not react

but when you add a catalyst they do react but the

catalyst does not participate in the reaction... It

stays the same but some how or other it facilitates

the reaction. In the absence of it the reaction

doesn’t occur... If the client, group or (other work

personnel from this worker’s organization) leaves

the meeting or room thinking what a wonderful

social worker I am, I think that I have done bad

work, because some how or other my personality,

my wisdom, my experience are now participating

in that person’s life. And I believe that that is

intrinsically weakening for that person.

When asked if this meant that he was neutral or

emotionally distant to clients, he disagreed arguing that

his role was to assist others to make decisions for

themselves, a process in which he believed his self had

no place. In other words, he still cared for others, but

did not believe that his self was required.

In the second group, two clinicians (one male and

one female) were identified who were also selective

about what aspects of self were considered appropriate

in their work, though ‘allowed’ more than their

professional skills and knowledge to be involved.

One clinician said

...I become aware of it (the self) and, and then I

can use it in a deliberate sense or choose not to

use it or maybe try to distance myself.

For these two clinicians the self was a tool, amongst

several, which they chose to employ, or not, in their

social work practice. They describe being selective

about what they use, for instance, in employing humor

at certain times.

The remaining majority of participants, all female,

saw their self as being extensively involved in all

aspects of their social work, indirectly as well as

directly. Representative comments include,

I’m always, you are always using the self, ‘cause

that’s human and the way you work is you.

I suppose when it comes down to it, the person of

the social worker, either as therapist or other-

wise... everything (including) our professional

knowledge, has got to come through...

While seemingly spontaneous, this use of self was

nonetheless conscientious. One clinician, for instance,

said that

I use my sense of humor, and it does, sort of, just

come out, but I am aware of it, and I use it well, as

opposed to it coming out of me without me

having thought about it.

Discussion

Social workers in this study described the self that they

brought to their work as individualistic, central and

unique, and only somewhat defined by others and the

112 Clin Soc Work J (2007) 35:107–116

123

context in which they worked. Clinicians generally

describe a self that is primarily defined by themselves.

For example, while allowing for contextual influences,

one clinician contested the power that clients might

perceive she has. Another clinician reported that while

her personal history was important in shaping her self,

she nonetheless ‘chooses’ to take ‘bits’ from her past

relationships, rather than having these past relation-

ships shape her. Thus, clinicians in this study reject the

relational model of the dialogic self, proposed by Yan

and Wong (2005) and preferred to consider the self

that they bring to their work as primarily defined by

themselves and only somewhat influenced by others.

Given that the person-in-environment framework is

widely accepted as the training model for social workers

(Gibelman, 1999), participants’ views of self as individ-

ual, rather than relational and contextual, is concerning.

The clinicians in this study do not do as they have (or

should have) been trained to do, with their views of self-

conflicting with current thinking and practice models.

One possibility for this finding is that the idea of self in

western traditions has become increasingly individual-

ized, with Western cultures promoting ideals of per-

sonal uniqueness and self-fulfillment (Cushman, 1990).

Similarly, Muran (2001) argues that individuals are

often not aware of how much they are thoroughly

embedded in the world around them. This is a result of

both unconscious influences and well as social filters

around people, some of which they just take for

granted, and others of which they are no longer aware.

Muran (2001) claims that ultimately people are

unaware of how much their values, beliefs and identi-

ties are influenced by the society in which they live and

instead consider that their values and beliefs are

somehow determined by themselves. Consequently,

while an interpersonal aspect of self may be important,

participants may not be aware of the influence of

others, on both a micro- and macro-scale, in their

descriptions of the self that they bring to their work.

The context of the interview and the type of

questions posed may inadvertently have focused on

each individual clinician, rather than the processes

existing between a clinician and his or her clients.

Issues of race and gender between the interviewer and

interviewee will also influence what is said and not said

as well as how information is interpreted and pro-

cessed. Furthermore, the interview context invited

each participant to step outside of the context in which

they usually functioned, and through the relationship

with the researcher, engage in a personal exploration

about the clinician’s self. Therefore, it is possible that

these discussions encouraged participants to develop

an overall structure of self, or ‘omnibus self’ (Bruner &

Kalmar, 1998, p. 323) that may not exist when working.

Accordingly, the context of the interview may result in

greater coherence in the presentation of self than

exists, and in particular, descriptions of a localized,

individual self.

Additionally, clinicians may not get the opportunity

to talk about themselves very much, in both therapy

nor in the broader framework of their workplaces

(something that several participants commented on

early on in the interview) and may have used the

interview to make up for this omission. The interview

was a reasonably focused time for each clinician and

most of the participants preferred to meet outside their

workplace. Rather than being ‘work’ focused, the

central purpose of the interview was on the clinician

and his or her self. Consequently, participants may

have taken the opportunity in the interview to

compensate for the absence of ‘self’ in their work lives.

Kondrat (1999) points out that most social workers

do not recognize the importance of contextual factors

in the formation of their personal attitudes and beliefs,

a finding in accord with this study. Consequently, she

argues that clinicians need to understand how beliefs

and values, such as racism, is more than a matter of

personal attitude, but is also a part of the structure of

social institutions and the relationships that all clini-

cians engage in. In such an approach clinicians are

invited

...to tell their own narratives about who they are

and how their own unique stories predispose them

to particular ways of perceiving and knowing. The

goal is for social work practitioners to understand

how the selves they are and the background they

bring to each encounter intersects with the stories

of other social actors to produce particular mean-

ing, understandings, or distortions. The larger

question would be how racism is woven into their

self-narrative (Kondrat, 1999).

Hence, participants’ view of the self that they bring

to their work, which did not incorporate the broader

social and cultural dynamic within which the self is

placed, has subsequent training implications and might

be rectified by Kondrat’s (1999) above suggestions.

Clinicians also describe the self that they bring to

their work as being both personal and professional.

This is an important finding because it confirms

previous suggestions (Reupert, 2006) that clinicians

bring more to their practice than their professional

persona. Hence, clinicians’ personhood needs to be

acknowledged as an individual and unique entity in

future research, training and supervision.

Clin Soc Work J (2007) 35:107–116 113

123

While most clinicians acknowledged the inevitable

influence of self due to various publicly observable

variables, such as their clothing and office furniture, on

the whole, participants preferred to consider the ways

in which they might usefully extend their ‘self’ as part

of their practice. Minimizing the influence of contex-

tual variables in their work is also consonant with

participants’ reluctance to describe the self as a socially

constructed and contextual entity. Similarly, even

though clinicians identified the use of self in environ-

ments other than therapy, these enactments still

occurred in one-to-one relationships with others,

rather than at macro-level of intervention, as previ-

ously advocated by Heydt and Sherman (2005) and

Lee (1983). Nonetheless, clinicians were able to iden-

tify a number of useful self-enactments, in both their

therapeutic and non-therapeutic work, such as rela-

tionship building, the use of humor, applying theory to

practice, being a role model and verbal self-disclosure.

The main way clinician’s self was engaged in social

work practice was in one-to-one interpersonal interac-

tions, with clients, work colleagues and others. Clini-

cians used their self explicitly for the purposes of

building relationships or indirectly toward this goal,

through other self-enactments. This finding extends

previous research regarding the importance of self in

the therapeutic alliance (Edwards & Bess, 1998; Elliott,

2000) by emphasizing the importance of self in all of a

clinician’s interpersonal interactions.

Furthermore, while clinicians described the self that

they bring to their work as individual, they seemed to

use their uniqueness to connect with and understand

the self of others, in a variety of different environ-

ments. One clinician described using her self as a point

of reference for understanding another and using this

understanding to find a connection. The simultaneous

experience of sameness and diversity was an important

feature for clinicians’ interpersonal relationships in this

study, between the self of the clinician and the self of

another. The self of the clinician did not exist in

isolation but was involved primarily with, and along

side others, even if clinicians’ experience of self was

individualistic and unique. Perhaps because clinicians

experienced their self as individualistic, unique or in

other words ‘different’, they needed to look for, and

actively work toward bridging understanding with

others. Thus, rather than either-or positions of self, it

might alternatively be argued that the clinicians’ self is

both individualistic and relational, simultaneously.

While the sample size was small, it appeared that

overall, female clinicians were more likely to consider

their social work practice as an expression of self, while

the two male clinicians were more likely to consider

the self as a tool, which they might, or might not use, in

their work with clients. Female clinicians were more

likely to use the self when building relationships with

others. Female clinicians were also more likely to

disclose their immediate feelings, while one male

clinician preferred not to self-disclose and the other

male clinician disclosed ‘by the third degree’ (using his

own experiences but referring to someone else). Thus,

in this study, female clinicians linked their practices

more closely to self and appeared to reveal and share

more intimately of themselves in their work, than their

male colleagues. Further research is required to inves-

tigate the ways in which gender plays a role in the use

of self, from the client as well as the clinicians’

perspective. Additionally, from this data, there did

not appear to be any differences across years of

experience in terms of clinicians experience of self,

though again, the sample size was small and requires

further investigation.

The clinicians in this study did not refer to ways in

which their self might impact negatively on practice, as

previous countertransference literature might indicate.

Perhaps clinicians in this study were reluctant to report

such instances, and instead constructed the kind of self

they would like to have, as opposed to the self they

actually present. In this study, clinicians describe a self

which is, in many ways, ‘better’ than the self that exists,

outside of work. For example, one clinician described

how she has had to develop her self, to make it stronger

and robust, to ensure that she is able to deal with her

own discomfort and anxiety, when dealing with clients

who are facing raw and gut wrenching pain. Another

described being more caring and patient at work than

with her children. To this end, social worker’s ability to

reflect on and be aware of their self ensured that it was

a purposeful and intentional entity in their work,

though different processes were identified.

Accordingly, clinicians in this study ensured that the

self they presented or used was one that was functional

and useful. One clinician described presenting only his

professional skills and knowledge and neutralizing or

suppressing other, personal aspects of self. While he

acknowledged that he brought more than his profes-

sional skills and knowledge to his work, he argued that

for more effective practice and for his own self-care,

the personal aspects of self were ideally not to be used.

Rather than being coldly distant or emotionally

unavailable, a stance sometimes prescribed by psycho-

analytically orientated therapists (Frank, 1999), this

clinician conveyed the importance of being non-direc-

tional. Non-directivity is an important premise that

ensures clinicians respect a client’s ability to self direct

while at the same time demonstrating understanding

114 Clin Soc Work J (2007) 35:107–116

123

and acceptance (Brodley, 1997). Kahn (1999) describes

being non-directional as a clinician’s attempt ‘to avoid

introducing content from his or her subjective frame-

work and consistently strive to understand and ‘reflect’

back to the client the client’s subjective framework’ (p.

95). Interestingly, however, Kahn (1999) argues that

being non-directional is a misnomer, for even by doing

‘nothing’ a clinician is still doing something that

influences his or her clients.

Two clinicians were identified who were selective

about the use of self, though ‘allowed’ more than their

professional skills and knowledge in their work. These

clinicians purposefully decided how much and to whom

they would use selective aspects of self. Both described

the self in terms of a tool which they could conscien-

tiously chose to use, or not use, in their work. As such,

these clinicians articulate an ability to stand back from

themselves and separate the professional and personal

aspects of themselves. While the problems of objec-

tively knowing oneself have been pointed out by Yan

and Wong (2005), Kondrat (1999) suggests that clini-

cians are nonetheless, most often trained to assume this

stance.

The remaining, majority of clinicians described the

self as very involved in their work. While specific self-

enactments were identified, these clinicians tended to

describe the self as their primary resource and intrin-

sically connected to every aspect of their work. Rather

than specific techniques, the self was involved as a

presence that permeated every aspect of their social

practice. Notwithstanding the spontaneous presence of

self, these clinicians still described how they were aware

of self, though not in an overtly, deliberate manner as

expressed by others. The experience of self for these

clinicians seems instinctive and intuitive though at the

same time based on reflection and knowledge of what

works for them as social workers. This finding is similar

to England’s (1986) description of clinician’s intuitive

processing, that is ‘sound’ and ‘subject to evaluation’.

While the efficacy of these three approaches cannot be

ascertained in the present study, they constitute differ-

ent models of processing in social worker’s use of self.

This description of the different internal processes

experienced by clinicians as they go about their social

work practices is important and might be usefully

discussed in social worker education and supervision

and become the focus of future research.

Conclusion

Overall, social workers acknowledge that they bring

more to their work than their professional knowledge,

skills and training. Many useful self-enactments were

identified in clinical and non-clinical settings. Different

models of processing were shown, and with this,

different ways in which social workers might become

aware of their self, in their social work practice. Even

the one clinician, who strove to ensure that personal

aspects of self were not involved in his work, acknowl-

edged that his individuality was nonetheless a part of

the self that he brought to this work. This finding

highlights the point that the training and supervision of

clinicians should not only focus on technique and

theory, but also on the personal qualities clinicians

bring to practice. Based on their strengths rather than

weaknesses, each social worker might consider what

they personally have and want to offer and also how

they might ensure that the presence and/or use of self is

functional and useful.

While a small sample size limits the generalizability

of findings, it did allow an in-depth exploration of the

topic in question, particularly one that is not easily

quantified. Future studies might clarify specification

between social worker’s use of self in therapeutic and

non-therapeutic environments, and look in more detail

at questions regarding race, gender and sexual identity.

Clients’ perspectives on clinicians’ use of self also

warrants exploration, when viewing clinicians as ‘real

people’ or ‘individualistic’. Overall however, this small

study highlighted the individual and functional nature

of the self that clinicians bring to practice, and the

concurrent importance of self when establishing and

maintaining a clinician’s many interpersonal relation-

ships.

References

Brodley, B. T. (1997). The nondirective attitude in client- centered therapy. Person-Centered Journal, 4, 18–30.

Bruner, J. S., & Kalmar, D. A. (1998). Narrative and meta narrative in the construction of self. In M. Ferrari, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Self-awareness: Its nature and development New York: Guilford 308–331.

Coady, N. F., & Wolgien, C. S. (1996). Good therapists’ views of how they are helpful. Clinical Social Work Journal, 24(3), 311–322.

Cournoyer, B. (2000). The social work skills workbook (3rd ed). Belmont: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Cushman, P. (1990). Why the self is empty. Toward a historically situated psychology. American Psychologist, 45(5), 599–611.

Davies, M. (1994). The essential social worker (3rd ed). Vermont: Arena.

Edwards, J. A., & Bess, J. M. (1998). Developing effectiveness in the therapeutic use of self. Clinical Social Work Journal, 26(1), 89–105.

Elliott, C. (2000). Tuning and practicing the therapeutic instru- ment: The therapist’s life experience. Clinical Social Work Journal, 28(3), 321–330.

Clin Soc Work J (2007) 35:107–116 115

123

England, H. (1986). Social work as art. Making sense for good practice. London: Allen & Unwin.

Frank, K. A. (1999). Psychoanalytic participation. Action, inter- action and integration. London: The Analytic.

Gibelman, M. (1999). The search for identity: Defining social work—past, present, future. Social Work, 44(4), 298–310.

Goldstein, E. G. (1994). Self-disclosure in treatment: What therapists do and don’t talk about. Clinical Social Work Journal, 22(4), 417–433.

Guba, E. G. (1978). Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California.

Heydt, M. J., & Sherman, N. E. (2005). Conscious use of self: Tuning the instrument of social work practice with cultural competence. The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 10(2), 25–40.

Jacobson, W. B. (2001). Beyond therapy: Bringing social work back to human services reform. Social Work, 46(1), 51–62.

Kahn, E. (1999). A critique of nondirectivity in the person- centered approach. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 39(4), 94–110.

Kondrat, M. E. (1999). Who is the ‘self’ in self-aware: Profes- sional self-awareness from a critical theory perspective. Social Service Review, 73, 451–476.

Langs, R. (1982). Psychotherapy: A basic text. New York: Jason Aronson.

Lee, L. (1983). The social worker in the political environment of a school system. Social Work, 302–307.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Muran, J. C. (2001). An introduction: Contemporary construc- tions and contexts. In J. C. Muran (Eds.), Self-relations in the psychotherapy process Washington: American Psychological Association. 3–44.

Neuman, K. M., & Friedman, B. D. (1997). Process recordings: Find-tuning an old instrument. Journal of Social Work Education, 33(2), 237–244.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed). London: Sage.

Reupert, A. (2006). The counsellor’s self in therapy: An inevitable presence. The International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 28(1), 95–105.

Sheafor, B. W., & Horejsi, C. R. (2003). Techniques and guidelines for social work practice (6th ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Yan, M. C., & Wong, Y. R. (2005). Rethinking self-awareness in cultural competence: Toward a dialogic self in cross-cultural social work. Families in Society: The Journal of Contempo- rary Human Services, 86(2), 181–188.

Andrea Reupert have worked for several years as a teacher and therapist in a variety of settings, including schools, unemployment agencies, prisons and rehabilitation. In 2004, she completed her PhD in the area of the use of self. She is currently a lecturer in the School of Education, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, Australia.

116 Clin Soc Work J (2007) 35:107–116

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.