Analyzing and Solving Social Problems ● 125interactions, and analyses of social problems (see chapter 2 in this book and
Payne 2005, 2014).
In social work, theory cannot be separated from practice, which is why we
need to explore both explanatory and interventive theory. Explanatory theory
“accounts for why an action results in or causes particular consequences and
identifies the circumstances in which it does so” (Payne 2005, 5). For each
explanatory theory, there is a potential interventive theory. Interventive the-
ory, while not discussed in detail by Payne, was highlighted by Shannon and
Young (2004) as an essential component of theory, as it seeks to develop the
how of explanatory theory. If a social problem has different levels or theories
of explanation, then interventive theory will provide different strategies (the
how) to address the problem. Some of these strategies may lead to the devel-
opment of specific practice models to be applied in a specific social problem
context. For example, a participatory strategy to address the problem of crime
promotes the use of a family group conference practice model. Payne also
suggested that models attempt to describe what happens in practice. Mod-
els are designed either to apply to a wide range of problems—for example
the task-centered model, which can be applied in multiple situations—or
to apply very specifically, such as the straight thinking model, which is used
primarily for work with offenders. In the case of crime, the explanatory
republican theory (focused on the absence of interference with liberty) and
reintegrative shaming theory (focused on constructive use of shame to recon-
nect people to their communities) link strongly to the interventive strategies
of participation and reintegration (Braithwaite 1989; Braithwaite and Pettit
1994). In chapter 4, Keddell and Stanley provide clear examples of the use
of the strengths perspective and the signs of safety approach in work with
children and families.
Payne’s broad definition of theory (2005, 2014) was somewhat limited in
its linear presentation of ideas, and it potentially misleads readers to think
that explanation leads directly to intervention or that explaining the cause of
a social problem will lead to an obvious solution. Rittel and Webber (1973,
166), in referring to wicked problems, noted that “the choice of explanation
determines the nature of the problem’s resolution” but that we cannot test
such linear presentations in a scientific manner. However, just because we
cannot always test the link between a problem’s cause and its resolution, that
does not mean that a link is not there or that we should not try to resolve the
problem. Rittel and Webber (1973) noted that people choose explanations
that seem most plausible to them and act accordingly; in other words, their
reasoning is often not scientific but makes sense to them.
Shannon and Young (2004) extended Payne’s ideas into a useful framework for
solving social problems. The framework is further adapted here, to encourage