Addressing the Contradictions of Social Work: Lessons from Critical Realism, the Social Solidarity Economy, and the Hull-House Tradition of Social Work

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a cogent and well-argued paper. Congratulations on developing an original line of argument regarding a macro-view of social work's mission in the current global order.

• What is the main question addressed by the research? The main question is how can we use critical realism and lessons from the Hull House form of social work to think about critical theory and practice in social work in the current global situation.
• 
  Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? Yes, it is both original and relevant. Does it address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/ is not
  the case. Yes, it is both original and relevant. I am not aware of any other work that addresses these questions in the same way. I am not sure that anything else can be or needs to be said on this.
• 
  What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? It adds a new perspective, introducing a fresh argument. It is helpful in bringing together the need for a critical theoretical view with the practicality of social work. It also avoids the community/individual dichotomy in much debate about the overall focus of social work.
• 
  What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? No improvements are necessary. The methodology is appropriate. This is theoretical not empirical work.
• 
  Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented
  and do they address the main question posed? Please also explain why this
  is/is not the case. Yes, the conclusions follow from the evidence and argument. Given the nature of the work (theoretical rather than empirical) this is completely acceptable.
• 
  Are the references appropriate? Yes, they are. More historical references could be included, but they would not add anything to the paper. Your guidelines ask reviewers not to suggest references for the sake of it, and to avoid adding their own. I am following that advice as I understand it.
• 
  Any additional comments on the tables and figures. There are no tables or figures (again, this is a theoretical paper not empirical).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract should contain short information related to the main scope of the paper, the approach/methodology, results, discussions, conclusions & recommendation.

Expose the limits of the study, considering the study representativity at a larger scale/ context/. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

< !--StartFragment -->

This paper purports to be an ambitious contribution to discussions about the philosophical and structural dilemmas that beset modern social work. In the papers, the authors seek to diagnose two contradictions of the discipline: its internal incoherence between ontology, epistemology, and methodology, and its external entanglement with the capitalist hegemony sustaining global inequality. It attempts to resolve the matter through a synthesis of Critical Realism, the Social Solidarity Economy (SSE), and the Hull-House tradition. The is built on a previous article by the same team of authors and it situates itself as a theoretical treatise rather than an empirical study.

The argument is coherent and well integrated. The authors do a nice job moving from the identification of the problem to the elaboration of some potential solutions. They sustain the paper’s central thesis consistently. The notion that social work’s dependence on positivist and individualist paradigms serves to undermine its own ethics and aspirations. The authors strengthen this critique be grounding it in a realist philosophy of science. Using Critical Realism to bridge the gap between positivist and interpretive paradigms is novel. The discussion of these complicated issues is not laden with jargon.

The use of the Hull-House tradition and the Social Solidarity Economy as complimentary models for practice is well done. Their claim that social work can fulfill its mission by challenging rather than accommodating the capitalist structures that produce inequality is an outgrowth of the philosophical and historical analysis that precedes the claim.

The paper is internally consistent. There is a clear line that can be drawn from diagnosis to remedy. Sometimes, though, transitions between the sections are a bit rough and could be smoother. The paper sometimes lapses into repetition. Also, the paper seems to assume that the reader is at least somewhat familiar with the authors' earlier work. These aspects of the paper need to be tightened up.

The authors propose a reorientation of the field from a professional practice that is embedded in the welfare state to an agent of systemic change. The argument is that social work should become an explicitly political discipline. And it should be committed to social justice and ecological sustainability. This is a strength of the paper and also a potential vulnerability. The feasibility of this might be questioned. The authors should think about strengthening their case by acknowledging some possible tensions between radical critique and the need for professional pragmatism. They could also point to examples of social work programs that have successfully operationalized SSE principles.

The manuscript is well written, though densely packed. The English is clear. Certain passages that summarize theoretical concepts cold be edited for concision. Some sentences are too long. Nevertheless, the paper is accessible overall.

< !--EndFragment -->

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf