MacFadden, R. (1994). Knowledge lag: The dilemma of what to teach. OAPSW Newsmagazine. Spring.

Most knowledge, especially about families, has a limited "shelf life" unless it is constantly critiqued and refined. Problems occur when social change outpaces knowledge development. To some extent, this is happening now with respect to some of our knowledge base including our understanding of families. Yet, as educators, we have to transmit relevant content and practitioners have to act on some understanding.

This article will discuss some issues one must face in selecting content for a graduate social work course focusing on theoretical foundations with special reference to families.

Foundation knowledge theories are essential frameworks that undergird most intervention models. Systems, developmental, psychodynamic, roles, communications, behavioural, cognitive, feminist, and critical theories are examples of the range of frameworks currently included in some theoretical foundation level courses.

Many of these frameworks have been developed over decades and form a major portion of the knowledge base of generations of social workers. Yet, we know that knowledge is tied to the era in which it is formulated and varies in its evolutionary pace. While many of these frameworks evolve and are refined over time, sometimes this evolution does not keep pace with new social perspectives, awareness and imperatives. Serious lags develop which affect the credibility and utility of the content. Sometimes the entire basis of the framework is questioned, and this can substantially affect its appropriateness and usefulness.

Two relatively new perspectives have become imperatives in social work education. Feminism and multiculturalism represent dimensions that are being incorporated into our thinking and practice.

Feminism presents a significant challenge to our existing knowledge frameworks, particularly with reference to the family. Many graduate students arrive with an understanding and appreciation of feminism and encounter these traditional foundation frameworks which may not address the gender dimension. As an example, the systems framework has been critiqued as not acknowledging the significant role of gender in family relations, as it assumes equal power distribution, and emphasizes multiple causation. Family violence is seen in interactional terms, displacing responsibility among the system members. This neglects the gender power imbalance and deflects responsibility away from the actual abuser.

Such assumptions and omissions are infuriating for some students and are viewed as another example of patriarchally-biased knowledge development and gender politics. A feminist perspective implies that gender inequities enshrined in this conception of the family as a system are protected through knowledge frameworks which avoid identification of such areas and dynamics. This position views the family as the prime context for development of basic gender inequality and discrimination. Knowledge frameworks such as systems theory are viewed as fostering the secrecy and ignorance essential in maintaining a patriarchal system.

Individual and family developmental theories are additional examples of frameworks that exhibit this gender bias Erik Erikson's vital personality theory reflects the male values of independence, autonomy and achievement. These dimensions are proposed as "gold" standards of a healthy personality. How does a female orientation towards mutuality, connectedness, and consultation fit into this model? This critique is that maturity has been designed with a distinctly male slant and ignores or depreciates other attributes that are essential for living and working within a social context.

Family development models have been largely based on white, middle-class, intact North American, two-parent families. How do single-parent families, families experiencing separation and divorce and blended families fit into these models? What about the realities of dual career families that are becoming prevalent?

Many of these considerations which we see as basic factors, such as gender and culture, were not addressed during the early development of these foundation frameworks. As a consequence, constant screening of these frameworks is necessary. Even though some of the frameworks discuss variances and exceptions, and do offer some emerging new models, there is still an implication of some inherent normality or preferred patterns.

Let's take another example. The communication framework has been central in formulating assessment and intervention models. Some of the primary goals of a communications-interaction approach include promoting direct, emotionally expressive, open and clear interchanges with balanced participation by family members (i.e. some symmetry).

Our developing knowledge of cultural differences suggests that these goals may be more appropriate for North American, Anglo-Saxon families. For some cultures, targeting these goals could be highly inappropriate and dysfunctional. As an example, communication within some Asian families is more subtle, and indirect. Hall's work (Hall,1959;1976) in identifying differences between High Context Cultures and Low Context Cultures (e.g. North American) reflects the significance of culture in communication.

In summary, many of our current theoretical frameworks do not stand up to scrutiny arising from our growing awareness of the importance of factors such as gender and culture. This could also be extended to other factors such as ability, sexual orientation and social class. This awareness has outpaced our knowledge development in these areas, and we are experiencing an uncomfortable knowledge lag.

Instructors and practitioners face a dilemma in selecting relevant content. To what extent does the formulation incorporate these factors? Is the framework fundamentally flawed? What components are still relevant and valid? Where does one get relevant and valid frameworks that have a social work orientation? What should be taught? What should be used?

Several ideas come to mind. Firstly, there are developments that are leading to refinements of these frameworks (Devore and Schlesinger,1991 ). This knowledge frequently comes from fields other than social work, such as counselling psychology, feminist and multicultural sources. Interdisciplinary borrowing is particularly necessary as we incorporate these insights into our frameworks.

Identify the components of existing foundation frameworks that have validity and/or can be made relevant to gender, culture and other concerns. As an example, stages in the life course are evident, accompanied usually by the accomplishment of certain tasks. Are there stages within particular cultures? If so, how do these stages and tasks vary with culture, gender and other dimensions?

Conduct research that incorporates gender, culture and other dimensions as a basic part of the study. Without considering these factors, much research in our field today would be seriously limited. This research will lead to the development of new knowledge frameworks making them fundamentally sensitive to these issues.

 Be open to students about our current knowledge limitations. Sometimes students believe that there is vast literature in our field that incorporates these issues that instructors choose not to use. Engage students as partners in gathering and sharing sources and knowledge that reflect these perspectives.

Adopt a learner orientation. Students and instructors are mutually engaged in improving their knowledge. Instructors and students come from varying cultures, represent different genders, and sexual orientations. Encouraging dialogue and inquiry within a safe context that promotes understanding and acceptance of varying viewpoints and orientations is quite dynamic.

Use other sources to build and disseminate knowledge. Although there may be lags in formal knowledge development, there is much that is being done within the field. Using some of our field instructors and agencies that practice in gender- and culturally-sensitive ways invigorates the learning situation. Similarly, involving cultural organizations and representatives from gay organizations can provide real-life information that frequently has a lasting impact on our beliefs.

In conclusion, existing knowledge about the family is being challenged by new perspectives and realities like feminism and multiculturalism. The more we screen our existing knowledge from these perspectives, the more we realize how much there is to know. Yet, the anxiety about this situation is also accompanied by a new excitement of discovery. These emerging perspectives promise to enrich our understanding, improve our practice and reaffirm our value of appreciating the uniqueness of each person, incorporating factors such as race, culture, gender, sexual orientation, ability and class.

Robert J. MacFadden, MSW, Ph.D, C.S.W., is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto. He is currently Faculty Coordinator of the Research Office and a member of OAPSW's Continuing Education Committee.