IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v31y1990i1p27-34.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Person/environment construct: Positivist versus naturalist, dilemma or opportunity for health social work research and practice?

Author

Listed:
  • Rodwell, Mary K.

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to indicate that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the social work purpose of simultaneous attention to persons in their contexts. In fact, the productive pull of both perspectives is what separates social work from other helping professions. Indeed, it is what separates health social work from other health professions. What has created difficulty, however, has been the predominant lens through which person and environment have been investigated, understood and manipulated. This paper compares two major models of knowledge building in an attempt to identify the consequences for research and practice in social work. Examples are provided from both research and practice that derive from these differing perspectives in an effort to clarify the choices social worker health professionals make when encountering a person-in situation.

Suggested Citation

  • Rodwell, Mary K., 1990. "Person/environment construct: Positivist versus naturalist, dilemma or opportunity for health social work research and practice?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 27-34, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:31:y:1990:i:1:p:27-34
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(90)90006-E
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:31:y:1990:i:1:p:27-34. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.