A study of community guides: lessons for professionals practicing with and in communities.

Ungar, Michael ; Manuel, Susan ; Mealey, Stephanie 等

Social workers appreciate the knowledge local populations have to solve local problems, but theory and models of practice are often generated in settings outside the communities in which they are used. An emerging postmodern critique of how social workers position themselves as expert "knowers" is leading the profession to look for sources of helping knowledge indigenous to the communities it serves (Borg, Brownlee, & Delaney, 1995; Howe, 1994; Leonard, 1997; Pease & Fook, 1999; Saleebey, 1994). This article presents a study that used nonprofessional community helpers as a source of knowledge and examines the implications of this nonprofessional expertise for clinical and community practice.

Those who have looked at the social work profession through the lens of privileged knowledge caution practitioners to deconstruct the power implicit in what is accepted as truth. As Howe (1994) wrote, "The social work professional is no longer the sole arbiter of the meaning of events" (p. 525). How then, are we to proceed day-to-day

in our practices? Although social workers frequently discuss postmodern and critical conceptualizations of privilege and knowledge, scant evidence has been provided that elucidates the principles necessary to work in diverse contexts. In a postmodern world where social and cultural realities are becoming increasingly fractious, social workers must reposition themselves with and in the communities they serve.

The research discussed in this article, studying the work of indigenous, nonprofessional community helpers, looked practically at how we might invert the privileged position of the social worker as "expert," "other," or "outsider." This use of community collaterals, those indigenous to the communities social workers serve, is not new to the profession's methods of practice. Outcomes from this research, however, support the repositioning of social workers in communities in ways similar to those of nonprofessional helpers.

As early as the mid-1960s, a recognized emphasis on indigenous knowledge was evident in the social work literature. Indigenous encouragers, to use Biddle and Biddle's (1968) term, sought to do much the same work as the guides who participated in the present study. These encouragers are volunteers who work with community professionals tasked with providing local services. According to Biddle and Biddle, encouragers were created by these outsiders to further their goals. In contrast, the community guides introduced in this study are self-referential, existing apart from formal delivery systems.

There have been a number of well-documented attempts to work with a community's "indigenous nonprofessionals" (Reiff & Riessman, 1965). Little has changed in this approach over the past four decades. Reiff and Riessman differentiated local informal helpers from the now ubiquitous nonprofessionals whom outsiders designate, however benignly, as service agents. According to Reiff and Riessman, the indigenous nonprofessional is a member of the group being served, whose skills and relationship with the community is valued because of his or her social position.

 The indigenous nonprofessional is poor, is
 from the neighborhood, and is often a member
 of a minority group. His (sic.) family is
 poor. He is a peer of the client and shares a
 common background, language, ethnic origin,
 style, and group of interests which it would be
 impossible, and perhaps even undesirable, for
 most professionals to maintain... Because of
 what the indigenous nonprofessional is, there
 are things he can do which the professional is
 not able to do and should not do. Even professionals
 who have excellent relationship skills
 are limited by the nature of their function as
 an "expert." This definition of role, which
 they and the poor both hold, resents the development
 of a fully rounded, everyday relationship.
 Yet it is this very type of relationship that
 is the key to effective program participation
 on the part of the poor. And it is this very type
 of relationship that the indigenous nonprofessional
 can establish. He "belongs;" he is a "significant
 other;" he is "one of us." He can be
 invited to weddings, parties, funerals, and
 other gatherings--and he can go. (p. 7)

Reiff and Riessman (1965) separated these helpers into two categories: expediters or service agents and case aides or therapeutic agents. Both have roles in social services organizations. Ironically, both types of agents share much in common with the guides discussed here. An expediter interprets, negotiates, educates, advocates, instructs, and helps clients of a particular service link to community services. Case aides, or therapeutic agents, are companions, counselors, supporters, and interveners who maintain close relationships with those being helped. Both roles are formalized through their involvement with professionals. Guides do similar work but exist in their social environments without the homogenizing influence of the services bureaucracy.

It is common to observe social workers in aboriginal communities, out of necessity, relying on indigenous helpers and their practice wisdom, as do professionals in rural or socially isolated non-aboriginal communities (Borg et al., 1995; Mastronardi, 1990). Our tendency has been to look at this type of practice as resulting from scarce professional resources or expedience in circumstances of language and cultural diversity, rather than a serendipitous solution to the imposition of cultural knowledge by one group on another.

For the purposes of this study, and based on related work by McKnight (1991, 1995), the indigenous, nonprofessional helpers invited to participate were referred to as community guides. We reasoned that the skills and interventions these helpers used as community "insiders" would be a valuable source of expertise to inform a postmodern social work practice. A community was defined as any group of individuals bound together by geography, mutual interests, affiliations, identifications, or functions (Schriver, 1998). McKnight (1991) discussed at length how some individuals in communities play pivotal roles "guiding" those excluded back into the associational life of the community:

 Because it is so infrequently the case that excluded
 people and their families are able to
 overcome the barriers of service and incorporate
 themselves into community life, we have
 found that the most frequently successful incorporation
 has taken place as a result of
 people who have assumed a special responsibility
 to guide excluded people out of service
 and into the realms of community life. (p. 10)

The relevance of McKnight's (1991, 1995) work to social work has not been adequately explored. McKnight said he has had little success training social workers to function as guides, because they are hesitant to fully participate in the associational life of a community, preferring the professional boundaries that designate them as "other."

The present research addresses this problem and was structured to increase the discursive power guides have in relation to helping professionals by using guides and their knowledge in the instruction of social work students in a university setting. It is not, however, our position to argue against a role for professional helpers or dismantling of the welfare state and its formal institutions. We agree with McGrath, Moffat, George, and Lee (1999) when they state:

 It is important not to embrace 'community' as
 a solution to counter the state's failure to meet
 its social obligations adequately. It is the function
 of the state to provide equitable access to
 health, education, and employment programs,
 protection in times of economic hardship, and
 the maintenance and enforcement of human
 rights. The third sector or civil society is not a
 replacement for the state but a mechanism to
 influence the form of the state and the market.
 (p. 17)

We suggest that social workers, as representatives of the state, would be more effective in promoting equity and human rights if they shared discursive power with their communities. Perhaps it was McKnight's (1995) attempt to train social workers to be guides rather than learn from guides that was the problem. Positioning the knowledge of guides in the classroom, at conferences (Ungar, Manuel, Mealey, & Thomas, 2000), and in articles such as this strategically enhances and privileges the knowledge held by these guides who work with or in communities fulfilling many of the same functions as social work professionals.

The Study

This naturalistic research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) examined many aspects of the work of community guides and the transferability of their knowledge to social work practice. We first examined how these guides move people from positions of exclusion to inclusion in their communities. The guides were chosen for the roles they play addressing the marginalization and oppression of those disadvantaged by factors related to their social or geographic location, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, physical or mental challenges, victimization, gender, sexual orientation, or the effects of colonization and exclusion. The practice principles indigenous to these guides were then compared with the knowledge that underpins professional practice through a survey of the literature. We asked, "What can these community guides teach us as professionals about effective practice in their communities?" In this way the local discourse of nonprofessional guides was privileged in relation to the knowledge base of experts. The third aspect of the study was heuristic. It served to educate the research team, who were a class of third-year university students in their first year of social work studies. Rather than receiving professional rhetoric regarding a postmodern practice, students were compelled early in their career development to turn to their communities for exemplars of nonprofessional practice wisdom and privilege that knowledge in an academic setting. This work shares a common territory with that of Gorman (1993), Rodwell (1998), and Scott (1989), who have noted similarities between naturalistic and narrative forms of inquiry and social work assessment and intervention.

Using a grounded theory approach, which fits well with the nature of the study (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990), data were collected by students as partial fulfillment of the requirements for a course on Human Behaviour and the Social Environment in the fall of 1999. After an introduction to McKnight's work, students were asked to "find and interview an individual who is making or has made a difference in his or her community... You are asked to locate a community 'guide.' As discussed in class, this will likely be a nonprofessional helper. It may be someone you know or a stranger to whom you are introduced." Guides were purposefully sampled on the basis of their variability (Patton, 1990) after discussions by students with the course instructor (the first author). To ensure the confirmability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) of results, guides had to be recognized by others in their communities as "much more than volunteers," but they could not be chosen on the basis of their profession (that is, teachers or social workers). Each student had to demonstrate through consultations with community members that the chosen guide was recognized as a nonprofessional helper by his or her community. Because guides' selection was based on the recognition of others in their communities, they were regarded positively by those referring them. This had the unintended consequence of creating sampling bias, because only guides whose behaviors met with community norms and reflected altruism were nominated for the study.

Although some participants were community leaders, aspects of their guiding practice were only indirectly related to their official duties. Each individual selected had to be known to be helping marginalized individuals navigate their way back into their communities and assisting as an unpaid volunteer. Therefore, each student had to have sufficient knowledge of the guide's activities to know whether he or she helped in this way before the person was invited to participate in the study. In practice, this meant that most guides were either known to the students, their families, or friends, and easy introductions could be made through existing social networks. The final sample was one of convenience, with an emphasis on variability.

Because the students came from across Newfoundland, Canada's easternmost province, and the assignment coincided with a semester break so that students could return to their home communities, the guides represented many geographic communities. Being new to the field of social work, students were expected to be ideally suited to gather the data and open to discovering alternative ideas of what constitutes good practice. This design was intended to enhance what Lather (1991) termed "construct validity" by using as researchers those less embedded in professional discourse and therefore better positioned to discover the "weak points of the theoretical tradition" (p. 67) from which we operate.

Participants in the study came predominantly from rural parts of Newfoundland, although urban dwellers identified themselves as rural in background and approach to their community (see York, Denton, & Moran, 1993). Twenty-five participants were women and 10 were men, with ages ranging from the early 20s to the 60s. Some participants were raising families, some were single, and some had already launched their children. Their occupations were diverse and included mayors, teachers, convenience store owners, aid workers, retired business people, homemakers, students, government employees, recreation directors, pediatricians, real estate agents, and unemployed fishery workers. Those whom the participants chose to help were an equally diverse group. Many devoted their efforts to helping young children, teenagers, adults, and elderly citizens at the same time; others focused on a particular age group. For example, some guides helped older people isolated as a result of illness or the recent loss of a spouse; others helped children with learning disabilities; some worked with delinquent youths in or out of custody; many worked through church organizations with disadvantaged parishioners and nonparishioners; others helped recent immigrants, unemployed people, single parents, school dropouts, people with intellectual challenges, as well as members of their own family debilitated by disease. The one common characteristic among the people whom the guides helped was their exclusion to varying degrees from their communities.

Students were provided with an interview guide based on the theoretical material from the course. An introduction to qualitative interviewing emphasized the need to follow the interviewee's lead and explore exceptions and unique aspects of their work (Kvale, 1996). Interviews lasted from 45 minutes to more than two hours. Students were encouraged to tape-record their interviews, and fully half did so. Others wrote notes during and after the interview. Students were asked to use some or all of the following questions during their interviews, and any others that they found personally useful: What impact has this person had on the life of his or her community? How does he/she define that community? How did this person actually make his or her contribution? How does he/she explain his/ her success? What would he/she do differently in the future? What name does this person give to the role he/she plays in his/her community? Does this person show any or all of the five characteristics McKnight found in community guides (that is, a focus on capacities; personal connection with the community; trust shown in them by others; a view of their community as a reservoir of hospitality; and a willingness to say good-bye to those they help once they are made part of the associational life of the community)? Are there other characteristics that the person shows that McKnight did not mention? What are some illustrative stories from this person's "practice?" Although these questions had the potential to reify the knowledge claims of the community, just like professional claims, the structure of the course and needs of the students demanded that such direction be provided. After the interviews, each student completed a 2,500-word essay summarizing the interview, sharing important quotes, and discussing conceptual issues that emerged. These essays were sent to the guides for comment.

In part two of the assignment, students compared and contrasted what the guide taught them about helping in the community with what the social work literature says about working with and in a community in general, whether as a clinician, case manager, or community worker. Students were asked which knowledge is more useful to social workers and which models or paradigms of practice most closely fit with how the person interviewed has helped his or her community. Finally, after reading the social work literature, and analyzing the interview, they were asked whose knowledge is, in their opinion, most reflective of good practice?

Students also identified the theoretical orientation from which they were analyzing the interview and referenced their approach. These theory papers examined issues of boundaries, ethics, community work, family therapy, group work, and other related topics, as well as substantive areas of practice such as work with individuals with mental challenges, young offenders, services for elderly people, young single parents, and other groups that were discussed. These papers also were sent back to the guides for comment. During the final class, and in conversations with students after the course, feedback from the guides was reviewed.

For the third part of the assignment, students developed an annotated bibliography relevant to the content of the interview they conducted. They could choose to annotate references related to the helping skills demonstrated by the guide or look at sources relevant to the type of work the guide does (for example, work with youths, older people, people with intellectual challenges, and so forth).

After completing the course, three students volunteered, along with the instructor, to code and analyze the composite data set using techniques for developing a substantive grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990; see also Rodwell, 1998; Silverman, 2000). Although we did not analyze the complete transcripts from interviews with each guide; we examined the papers prepared by students, which summarized the content of each interview and included many quotes from the interviewees. We set out to discover through a cross-case analysis consistent themes in the guides' work. Data were coded using indigenous and sensitizing concepts. Indigenous concepts included "invisibility," "informality," and "immersion," which emerged from the conversations with the guides. Sensitizing concepts included words and phrases such as "associational life," "contextual sensitivity," and "intervention," which came from our familiarity with the social work literature (including the course text by Schriver [1998] and other assigned readings) and reviews of that literature prepared by students to complete parts two and three of the assignment.

After each sequence of coding, the team discussed its work and then recoded the interviews coded by another member of the research team. This exchange allowed for multiple interpretations of the data to ensure dependability in the analysis. The coding and recoding procedures refined categories each time in a process that was both additive and divisive.

Findings

Invisibility

The title of community guide, used in this study as a sensitizing concept, was borrowed from McKnight (1991, 1995). But study participants described themselves as "motivator," "pushy in a good way," "big brother," "friend," "confidante," "someone who does a little bit of everything," "someone who can reach into the souls of people," and "a catalyst to jump start the engine." Many of these titles imply a leadership role, but guides insisted that their leadership is nonhierarchical and more catalytic than directive. Participants were reluctant to accept the title of guide.

Upon reflection, we found one aspect of the research design flawed in that we asked participants to single themselves out as individual agents of change and talk about their work and the name they would use to describe their community role. The self-effacing nature of many of their responses can be explained by three aspects of how interviewees saw themselves. First, they were reluctant to take the title of guide because it implied a formal relationship with those they helped. As Paul, an active member of the local PTA and a community resource for issues related to child poverty, said: "I help because I can, not because I want any kind of recognition." Second, guides played multiple and undifferentiated roles in their communities, making any single title too limiting. Peter, who worked with high-risk youths in his community and nationally in his role as a board member with a large nonprofit organization, put it best, saying: "It is impossible for me to turn off Peter the employee" and turn on "Peter the volunteer" or "Peter the father." As researchers we needed an organizing construct to name these people, but they preferred to leave their titles ambiguous. Third, guides resisted titles that in any way identified them as individual agents of social change. Peter added: "I've never done anything in the community myself." Brenda, who helps others in her college residence, said: "I do the things I do because it's what comes naturally to me. I don't think I play any particularly important role." As a result, the research team described them as "invisible guides," a description that respected the way participants were positioned in their communities.

The networks of concern invisible guides nurture and maintain depend on a complex weave of formal and informal participation in their community's associational life. Invisible guides sit on numerous local and national committees and are also known on a personal level in their community as people who can be relied on for help. These are busy people whose activities may not be fully appreciated because of their degree of immersion in different horizontal and vertical aspects of community life. The networking among individuals makes the guides' work possible. As Shirley, a long-time volunteer with 4H, explained: "We have dedicated leaders, interested members, and a strong support from parents." It is the many different ways she interacts with her community that allows her to achieve her personal goals. Whereas "outsiders," including social work professionals, want to differentiate guides from the network of relationships in which they live, guides prefer to remain invisible and immersed in their communities, crediting success to the matrix of relationships that they encourage to action.

We initially met such altruism with skepticism. However, given the sampling bias for guides who were well regarded in their communities, it was not possible to find negative examples of guides using their power to meet their own needs. Much has been written about the potential for social workers to be self-serving agents of social control (Margolin, 1997), but this theme did not emerge among the guides in this study.

Immersion and Inclusion

Many guides held recognized positions of authority in their community, but did not think of themselves as leaders. They explained that their efforts to foster inclusion were only indirectly a result of their role as, for example, district commissioner for youth organizations, church elder, physician, teacher, politician, executive of a local not-for-profit organization, and government advisory committee member. The titles in these positions had the potential to undermine their ability to function as informal helpers. As Tim, a coach and advocate for youths, said, "Young people aren't concerned with titles; if you want respect from young people you have to earn it." Guides who mistakenly assumed that their title might increase their credibility said they quickly found themselves ineffective. Thus, guides insisted that their communities place limits on use of their power. The invisibility and contextual specificity of the work they do are their greatest assets. The recognized positions of authority guides held served only to situate them in extensive formal and informal networks that facilitated their bridging activities. As Clarence explained, his work as a guide for incarcerated teenagers was meant to be "a bridge, really to get them over the hump of society and back into the community."

Bridging

The concept of "bridges" was an indigenous concept at the center of the substantive theory generated by participants in this study. Guides acted as bridges to inclusion in a variety of ways: They helped people return to school, church or work; they helped them manage their finances or provided direct financial support; they linked them to others through individual and group associations; they helped organize activities that allow inclusion to occur; they offered people opportunities to share their skills and talents in meaningful ways with others in their communities; and most of all, they talked with those excluded in ways that demonstrated that they are accepted and valued. For example, one guide, Donna, recounted a story of how she organized a "no brand name" dance at the local high school to address issues of low self-esteem and exclusion among many of the less-privileged youths she meets in her community. Although "invisible," guides positioned themselves in three ways to accomplish their bridging functions.

The Guide as the Bridge. Guides are often the ones who identify marginalized individuals in their communities. They see their role as welcoming those who are excluded back into the community. Alicia talked of her work with older people: "Getting people out and involved in the events of the community helps lessen the loneliness they might be feeling. It also gives them a chance to interact with others their own age even if it is only for a couple of hours." Nicholas, a shopkeeper in a small coastal community, told of how he was approached three years earlier by the mother of a 28-year-old woman who is mentally challenged. The mother asked him to hire her daughter. She is still employed with him today. Nicholas recognized the woman's talents and explained, "She has lots of qualities. For example, after some teaching she knows all the different flavors of drinks now and can fill the soda cooler herself without supervision." In very real terms, guides offer those excluded a bridge back to the community.

Guides also address gaps in the services provided by outside professionals. As Jane, a highly motivated volunteer who works with youths through her church, said, "Sometimes you may not even be aware, you might just come across somebody in your everyday travels who you see is in need of help and you wonder 'Why is this person not being helped?' And it is often because they have slipped through the cracks of the system." Similarly, Alicia, a mother and advocate for quality education for children with special needs, explained that her efforts were meant to "fill the gaps" in services experienced by those in need in her community. The proximal position these individuals occupy gives them an insider's perspective on whose needs are unmet.

The Guide as Architect of the Bridge ."Whoever I can get!" is the way Katherine explained how she finds others to help her in her work as a guide. Guides reported becoming more and more invisible in the process of guiding as individuals made connections with their communities. At this point in the process they would more aptly be described as architects of the bridge rather than the bridge itself. Molly agreed. During her interview she made extended reference to the groups she organizes for seniors:

 When you get up in years and your family has
 moved on, you find yourself losing contact
 with people. You need to get out and integrate
 with people. You have to do something. Get
 out and back into the community ... [The
 seniors] come to the group for the first time
 and they don't really want to be here. I guess
 they feel like they don't belong or can't belong
 to a walking group because of their so-called
 limitations. I let them know that there are no
 such things as limitations, and that there is
 nothing that we, as a group, can't overcome
 ... I introduce the new person around.

Molly is a catalyst that sustains the seniors' group. But it is the group that offers the bridge. All Molly provides is the introductions; the group has the task to nurture its own associational supports.

The Community as the Bridge. Successful as bridges and architects, guides explained that they are most comfortable as a member of a community of concern that collectively performs the bridging function. Professionals often mistake guides for leaders in this process, not understanding that it is their immersion and mutual dependency that enhance their capacity and that of others in their community to help. Charlie, who works with older individuals in his rural outport, emphasized that "one good turn deserves another." He found a way to get a seniors club free meeting space, offering them the opportunity to feel a part of something important. Each time the local Lions Club caters a party or wedding, the 50 Plus Club peels the vegetables for the meal. In exchange, the Lions Club provides the group with unlimited use of their facilities for activities and meetings. Alicia does much the same, explaining that "the key is to have all of our organizations working together within the larger community. A cooperation of the school and community will benefit the children and the other residents... Both will develop a positive outlook and a stronger spirit to support each other." Rallying people together around a common cause not only means abundant opportunities for marginalized individuals to participate in non-stigmatizing ways in their community, it also relieves the guides of the sole responsibility for integrating those who are excluded.

Discussion: Implications of Guides' Knowledge

The intent of this study was to explore the tacit knowledge of community guides and demonstrate its relevance to professional social workers involved in individual, family, and community-based practice. The qualities and intervention processes of community guides were compared with professional social work practice typical of casework in child welfare, mental health, corrections, and less formal community settings (see Table 1). The characteristics of professional social work are based on an analysis of the literature conducted by the student researchers (texts reviewed include Compton & Galaway, 1989; Hepworth & Larsen, 1993; Lee, 1992; Longres, 1995; Rothman & Sager, 1998; Schriver, 1998; Shulman, 1999). The composite statements in the right-hand column of Table 1 reflect a content analysis of the students' papers that they completed for the second part of the assignment. Students contrasted what the interviewee revealed with principles of practice found in the social work literature. The students selected which readings to examine, although most students explained anecdotally in their papers that their choices were based on convenience (texts used in this and other courses), recommendations from field supervisors and colleagues, and library subject searches. This list does not reflect well advances in critical, postmodern, feminist, and anti-oppressive forms of practice, but is indicative of more common models of practice taught to social work students. The conservative nature of what students found is consistent with observations made by Jessup and Rogerson (1999), who noted that there remains a gap between theoretical advances in social work and implementation of alternate practice paradigms in the training and everyday work of frontline practitioners. We argue that the dominant discourse, if not in universities, then in formal and informal agencies where social workers are employed still reflects a conservative model of practice as discussed (and discovered) by the student researchers (Margolin, 1997; Schmidt, Westhues, Lafrance & Knowles, 2001).

Despite differences, there is considerable overlap in both forms of practice. Guides accomplished many of the same tasks as social workers, but from a different location vis-a-vis their community and with different methods of intervention. Furthermore, guides did not distinguish their practice as either individual, family, or community focused. Much of their work appeared targeted to facilitating change in individuals, such as that by Nicholas, the shopkeeper, but the guides emphasized that their efforts at change from below seeded broader attitudinal and structural changes that could oppose marginalization. In their multiple roles as helpers, community members, or leaders of organizations, guides worked one-on-one with people while also making an effort to build a community of concern. This is similar to generic practice encouraged in professional social work (Compton & Galaway, 1989; Rothman & Sager, 1998; Shulman, 1999).

Although the literature on postmodern social work practice that critically deconstructs the position of privilege of the worker is increasing, there has been little study of how the repositioned professional intervenes effectively with or in communities at both the micro and the macro levels. Guides are uniquely positioned to inform this work. They teach us that helpers who are well placed in the associational life of their communities are uniquely suited to a practice that is sensitive to local contexts. They teach us that invisibility and inclusion are essential to marshalling the resources of a community. They teach us the necessity of power sharing. Finally, they teach us to question our role as outside facilitators.

Professional practice has typically been a highly visible act in which the professional is identifiable and clear in his or her mandated role as the one who assesses, solves problems, mediates, supports, advocates, plans, and analyses, to name just a few of his or her many designated functions (Heinonen & Spearman, 2001; Rothman & Sager, 1998). Fulfilling these roles has also meant an emphasis on the recognized expertise of professionals, rather than that of the indigenous wisdom of those being served. This leads us to question the applicability of the NASW Code of Ethics (2000), which states:

(a) Social workers should provide services and represent themselves as competent only within the boundaries of their education, training, license, certification, consultation received, supervised experience, or other relevant professional experience.

(b) Social workers should provide services in substantive areas or use intervention techniques or approaches that are new to them only after engaging in appropriate study, training, consultation, and supervision from people who are competent in those interventions or techniques. (Section 1.04)

It is unclear if the community nonprofessional is sufficiently competent to contribute to the worker's professional practice. As Heinonen and Spearman noted: "Professionalism refers ... to applying accepted principles and using the qualities and skills deemed necessary in the practice of a profession" (emphasis added, p. 52).

Furthermore, the professional social worker is expected to remain distinct from other community members. The NASW Code of Ethics (2000) makes clear that social workers should not maintain dual relationships "in which there is a risk of exploitation or potential harm to the client" (Section 1.06). In practice, this has meant caution is exercised in most dual relationships, and although these relationships needn't be avoided altogether (Loewenberg, Dolgoff, & Harrington, 2000), they are not recognized for the many benefits derived when a social worker wears many hats in one community. The Canadian Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics (1994) makes practice that is enhanced by community immersion and multiple locations of association even less tenable, stating: "A social worker who engages in another profession, occupation, affiliation or calling shall not allow these outside interests to affect the social work relationship with the client" (Chapter 6). Guides would argue that the success of their work is attributable directly to their multiple affiliations.

Even when workers are immersed in the community, their practice expertise tends to favor broader knowledge of interventions rather than a process of inquiry that would reveal the contextual specificity required to assist each community. Take for example Lee's well-known text Pragmatics of Community Organization (1992), in which he outlines the steps in community practice. Evidently, social workers require some codification of intervention techniques. However, as guides demonstrated, more indigenously derived models are needed for an effective and contextually relevant practice.

The tacit knowledge of the invisible guides, however, finds some support in the social work literature among those who have examined these issues critically. Ife (1997), for example, noted:

 Social workers, as people who work with, and
 in the interests of marginalised people and
 communities, have ... a particular responsibility
 to allow the voices of the marginalised to
 be heard. This requires a reluctance to move
 too quickly into an advocacy role, where social
 workers take it on themselves to speak on behalf
 of the marginalised, thereby making it
 social workers' voices that are heard, rather
 than those of the people they claim to represent.
 (p. 181)

Visibility, according to the guides, implies that the agent responsible for change is the professional, rather than the individuals or communities being served.

Others who have examined this issue have reached similar conclusions. Martinez-Brawley (1993) discussed a model of social work practice that dovetails professional services with the natural helping resources present in communities. She noted: "Most workers find that they must interweave formal with informal resources in order to respond to real need" (p. 70). This interweaving emphasizes debureaucratization, egalitarianism, and partnerships that promote power sharing between workers and consumers.

This research suggests that effective helping occurs when those intervening are not "other" to the community, but instead present themselves with permeable professional boundaries. This finding contrasts with Lee's (1992) assertion:

 We are not members of the community who
 will always live in the communities in which
 we work. We are not leaders who can draw
 strength from the energy that people give to
 them. We are, no matter how much we identify
 with a peoples' struggles, outsiders. This
 has an advantage that our position can provide
 us with a unique perspective and opportunities
 for learning. While there is no doubt
 that our liberation is intimately bound to that
 of the people and we can share in their victories
 and defeats, they are, in the final analysis,
 uniquely theirs. We must not create some romantic
 notion that because we believe and live
 in a struggle that we some how mystically become
 the same as the oppressed. (p. 38)

Guides teach us that we need to deconstruct this "insider-outsider" dichotomy. We suggest that this deconstruction of boundaries be one of the practice principles for a postmodern practice, just as the same principle has been elucidated in regard to work with aboriginal peoples.

Conclusion

The guides interviewed for this research expressed a positive orientation to recognizing local realities and the knowledge associated with each. Although all demonstrate a context specific set of skills, they paradoxically embraced a set of common practice principles, including invisibility and positioning in their communities' associational life, as central to their collective efforts. Guides are exemplars of how to be community minded in our work as professional social workers, but the lessons to be learned from them challenge the way we position ourselves in their communities. Little of our professional training reminds us that the communities we serve can also grow to be our communities. Guides argue that the work of the helper needs to be more invisible, immersed, and fluid. Although most social work offices treat the community as an extension of their services, turning to them for help with difficult to reach clients, guides revealed a different relationship between helper and community. They work with and in communities, integrated into the seamless associational life of the community. Some professional work, especially that mandated by courts and legislatures, should remain separate and apart, but the guides demonstrate that a practice that strives to be attuned to the local context of those with whom professionals work is much less distinguishable from what a community already does to help itself. The helper, professional or nonprofessional, can be a catalyst for change and a bridge to inclusion, but only when operating from a position of immersion.

Table 1

Qualities of Guiding Practice Compared with Professional Social Work
Practice

Quality Guiding Practice Professional Social Work

Visibility Invisible Highly visible,
 identified as a
 professional helper
 Self-effacing Promote what they do
 through professional
 roles
Relationships Nonformal Formal, mandated, and/or
with community legislated
 Roles multiple and Roles distinct;
 undifferentiated; boundaries maintained
 permeable boundaries between professional and
 personal life
 Communal agents of Depending on mandate/
 change role combine agentic and
 communal aspects of
 change
 Immersion in Community commodified;
 associational life of community as "other"
 community
 Vertical and horizontal Boundaries and
 integration otherness prevent fuller
 integration
Self-definitions Informal titles and Formal legislated
 descriptions professional designation
Contextual Contextual specificity Broad knowledge of
sensitivity of techniques, knowledge intervention techniques
 and community issues
Intervention Nurture networks of Build social support
processes concern through networks by organizing
 immersion in community community into
 "informal" structures
 Success is attributed to Empowering practice
 the actions of others facilitates client's
 personal and social
 efficacy
 Bridging functions Professional as trained
 * Guides as the bridge expert interveners;
 to inclusion works with community to
 * Guides as the solve problems, address
 architects of the marginalization, and
 bridges community build community capacity
 sustains
 * Community as the
 bridge (guide as part
 of a community of
 concern)

References

Biddle, W. W., & Biddle, L. J. (1968). Encouraging community development: A training guide for local workers. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Borg, D., Brownlee, K., & Delaney, R. (1995). Postmodern social work practice with aboriginal people. In R. Delaney & K. Brownlee (Eds.), Northern social work practice (pp. 116-135). Thunder Bay, ON: Lakehead University Centre for Northern Studies.

Canadian Association of Social Workers. (1994). Social work code of ethics. Ottawa: Author.

Compton, B. R., & Galaway, B. (1989). Social work processes (4th ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Gorman, J. (1993). Postmodernism and the conduct of inquiry in social work. Affilia, 8, 247-264.

Heinonen, T., & Spearman, L. (2001). Social work practice: Problem solving and beyond. Toronto: Irwin.

Hepworth, D. H., & Larsen, J. A. (1993). Direct social work practice: Theory and skills. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Howe, D. (1994). Modernity, postmodernity and social work. British Journal of Social Work, 24, 513-532.

Ife, J. (1997). Rethinking social work. South Melbourne, Australia: Longman.

Jessup, H., & Rogerson, S. (1999). Postmodernism and the teaching and practice of interpersonal skills. In B. Pease & J. Fook (Eds.), Transforming social work practice: Postmodern critical perspectives (pp. 161-178). London: Routledge.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge.

Lee, B. (1992). Pragmatics of community organization (2nd ed.). Mississauga, Ontario: Common Act Press.

Leonard, P. (1997). Postmodern welfare: Reconstructing an emancipatory project. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Loewenberg, F. M., Dolgoff, R., & Harrington, D. (2000). Ethical decisions for social work practice (6th ed.). Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.

Longres, J. F. (1995). Human behavior in the social environment (2nd ed.). Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.

Margolin, L. (1997). Under the cover of kindness: The invention of social work. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

Martinez-Brawley, E. E. (1993). Community-oriented practice in rural social work. In L. Ginsberg (Ed.), Social work in rural communities (pp. 67-81). Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.

Mastronardi, L. (1990). The Inuit community workers' experience of youth protection work. In L. Davies & E. Shragge (Eds.), Bureaucracy and community: Essays on the politics of social work practice (pp. 103-135). Montreal: Black Rose.

McGrath, S., Moffat, K., George, U., & Lee, B. (1999). Community capacity: The emperor's new clothes. Canadian Review of Social Policy, 44, 9-23.

McKnight, J. (1991, October). Beyond community services. Paper presented at Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario.

McKnight, J. (1995). The careless society. New York: Basic Books.

National Association of Social Workers. (2000). Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Available http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/ code.htm

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Pease, B., & Fook, J. (Eds.). (1999). Transforming social work practice: Postmodern critical perspectives. London: Routledge.

Reiff, R., & Riessman, F. (1965). The indigenous nonprofessional: A strategy of change in community action and community mental health programs. Lexington, MA: Behavioral Publications.

Rodwell, M. K. (1998). Social work constructivist research. New York: Garland.

Rothman, J., & Sager, J. S. (1998). Case management: Integrating individual and community practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Saleebey, D. (1994). Culture, theory, and narrative: The intersection of meanings in practice. Social Work, 39, 351-359.

Schmidt, G., Westhues, A., Lafrance, J., & Knowles, A. (2001). Social work in Canada: Results from the national sector study. Canadian Social Work, 3(2), 83-92.

Schriver, J. M. (1998). Human behavior and the social environment: Shifting paradigms in essential knowledge for social work practice (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Scott, D. (1989). Meaning construction and social work practice. Social Service Review, 63(2), 39-51.

Shulman, L. (1999). The skills of helping individuals, families, groups, and communities (4th ed.). Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.

Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: Sage Publications.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Ungar, M., Manuel, S., Mealey, S., & Thomas, G. (2000, May). A study of community guides: Lessons for professionals for a community building practice. Paper presented at Perspectives in Child Protection: Developments in Knowledge, Determinants of Optimal Health, Dilemmas in Practice, National Child Welfare Conference, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland.

York, R. O., Denton, R. T., & Moran, J. R. (1993). Rural and urban social work practice: Is there a difference? In L. H. Ginsberg (Ed.), Social work in rural communities (2nd ed., pp. 53-66). Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.

Michael Ungar, Susan Manuel, Stephanie Mealey, Golda Thomas, and Carolyn Campbell

Michael Ungar, PhD, is associate professor, Maritime School of Social Work, Dalhousie University, 6414 Coburg Road, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 2A7; e-mail: Michael.ungar@dal.ca. At the time this article was written, Susan Manuel, Stephanie Mealey, and Golda Thomas, were fifth-year BSW social work students at Memorial University of Newfoundland. All are now working as social workers in Canada. Carolyn Campbell, PhD, is assistant professor, Maritime School of Social Work, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 2A7.

Original manuscript received January 15, 2002 Final revision received November 25, 2002 Accepted December 16, 2002