Richmond's information sources and diagnosis
History of social work in 20 books
In this fourth post on Mary Rchmond’s Social diagnosis, I present information about two main areas of her analysis of social diagnosis. The previous post examined information gained from the first interview and from and about the family of the main person that the social worker is helping; Richmond does talk about this main person as ‘the client’. This is followed by detailed analysis of a range of other information sources, what they can offer and some of their disadvantages.
Richmond calls these ‘outside sources’ (pp. 160-79). She means outside the focal person and the immediate family of that person. She presents statistical information from a number of major source agencies, where relatives, neighbours, employees and sometimes services such as medical provision were often the most frequently used. She then goes on to look at how a social worker should shift the information-gathering about particular specialised categories of ‘social disability’.
Having discussed these, I then look in more detail at her analysis of processes of comparison and interpretation which lead to the diagnosis.
Choosing information sources
She presents (pp. 169-76) some principles by which social workers should choose their sources of information:
‘ “Strike out boldly for history” and avoid … those references whose point of view is most like our own’ (p. 170). While you should profit from previous investigation, seek to approach the situation from all the angles you can identify.
Seek sources likely to be rich in history and also in potential for cooperation in treatment.
Prefer first-hand observations.
Look out for sidelights not revealed at the outset in the first interview.
Look for a representative of social groups who will view the client and family from different angles.
Some groups will have similar views, but also look for groups where there is disagreement about the client and family, again seeking different perceptions.
Recognise contradictions in your evidence and explore them further.
