More Thoughts on Change

In my last posting, I mentioned my interest in "change;" however, I did not offer a definition of this construct. "Change" is actually not easy to define, but that has not stopped philosophers, scientists, and their pragmatic cousins (i.e., practitioners of various sorts [e.g., ethicists, engineers, social activists, social workers]) from trying. In this present blog, I will explore the meaning of "change." Since I am a social worker, my presentation will focus primarily on how this construct relates to human beings individually and in the aggregate.

Difference That Makes A Difference

Change is a pivotal construct in social work practice. Social workers deal with change on a daily basis. Surprisingly, change is not well defined in the professional literature. The aim here is to explore the conceptual and operational definitions of change, particularly in relationship to the socio-ecological transactional (SET) model promoted by Goeke (2002). I will also identify and describe specific strategies and techniques available to the social work practitioner that can be useful in promoting different types of change.

What is Change?

As a verb, the definition of change is to make or become different (Webster, 1979). Words that are synonymous with change include transform, alter, vary, modify, metamorphose, mutate, transfigure, transmute, convert, substitute, modulate, exchange, modify, shift, turn, reconstruct, and enter upon a new phase. As a noun, the word change denotes a difference in condition, state, or being from one point in time to another. Equivalent terms include alteration, correction, adjustment, variation, transformation, mutation, revision, permutation, and metamorphosis.

Bateson (1972) defined change simply as difference over time (p. 452). Here, difference is defined as: to be unlike; to be dissimilar; being other, not the same; a distinction; nonequivalence; discrimination; inequality; and discrepancy. Bateson's definition suggests that one or more attributes of something of interest is different from an initial point of observation (Time 1) to a subsequent point of observation (Time 2). This difference may be actual or real, or it may be constructed, perceived, or imagined from the perspective or frame-of-reference of the observer. We can extend this line of thinking to include the notion that some changes do make a difference while others do not. Stated differently, some types of change or change events do not matter as much as others. In some cases, they do not matter at all.

Naturally, this deceptively simple definition leads to a number of questions. For example, who or what is different? Who or what causes this difference? When and where does difference occur? And, how and why does difference occur? Our answers to these difficult questions follow. It is important to note that while these questions help direct our inquiry, they can also limit it. For now, suffice it to say that the answers depend on how we think about the client, the client system, the problems the client brings to the helping relationship, the helper, the helping relationship, and, among other things, the context of the helping relationship.

Endosystem Change

Because social work is grounded in the person-in-environment paradigm (Karls & Wandrei, 1994), we tend to think of change at various levels of social organization. At the micro level, we are interested in individual change. With regard to the SET model, this translates into change in the endosystem. The various components involved include volitional, cognitive, affective, behavioral, and biological/physical substratum.

Biophysiological Substratum Change

Basic biological changes (i.e., changes in anatomy, physiology, neurochemistry) are included here. I am not a biologist, so I will refer my readers to the many expert sources that can be accessed in any university library and on reliable web sites scattered throughout the web.

Ecosystem Change

Change at the mezzo level involves some typdiscerniblenable or meaningful difference in the relationships and transactions between two or more people in a family (e.g., the marital, parental, and/or sibling subsystems) or a small group (e.g., a task group or psychotherapy process group). Using the SET model, this is change that occurs in the ecosystem. At the macro level of practice, change is conceptualized at a broader social level involving aggregates of people in large groups, organizations, agencies, communities, and larger social units or systems (e.g., states, regions, nations, international alliances or coalitions). But it should be noted that even in higher order social systems, the relationships between systems typically involve individual human beings relating to and interacting with other individual human beings. The point is that their individual actions represent or affect many different people in the aggregate in overt and obvious ways because of the power these individuals are attributed to possess. We may say, for example, that two nations are at war, but the battles are ultimately declared and fought at the individual level by political leaders and their military forces.

Zone of Transaction Change

Simply put, the zone of transaction is the "space" between elements of a system in which transactions and change occur. Transactions may involve the exchange of tangibles, energy, information, and the like.

Conceptual Aspects of Change

The idea of change is inextricably tied to our individual and collective epistemologies and worldviews. An epistemology is a personal or shared set of assumptions about the world and how we know what we know. A worldview is a broad, general set of beliefs we hold about nature, people, things, and events.

Our experiences in life and the things we learn lead most of us to believe that one must understand the cause of a problem in order to solve or resolve it. In a fundamental way, change and problem solving are conceptually linked. For most of us, this is common sense. But, as Watzlawick (1978) and his colleagues (Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1974) have so elegantly demonstrated, the solution to a problem is not always found in the problem. In fact, solutions or attempted solutions may, in fact, be the problem. Further, some postmodern, constructivist brief therapy writers like Walter and Peller (1992) suggest that a solution to a problem is not found (nor does it exist a priori); rather, a solution is constructed. Further, these authors posit the belief that often more than one solution can be constructed for any given problem.

Dualisms and dilemmas. Dualism refers to the two-fold nature of a thing, and typically the dual properties or characteristics identified are opposites. When referring to change, we invariably find ourselves talking about its opposite as well; that is, we reference the concept of stability. In its simplest form, we can define change as the opposite of stability and stability as the opposite of change.

Most people are familiar with the idea Papp (1983) dubbed the dilemma of change. A dilemma occurs when one is caught between the proverbial rock (e.g., desire to change) and hard spot (e.g., desire to stay the same). This dilemma may be self-imposed or created by others. For example, a woman may present complaining of panic attacks. The client may state an unequivocal desire to change (i.e., to not have panic attacks). However, over a period of time, the social worker may find that the panic attacks create desired and apparently necessary physical and emotional distance between the client and her husband. In Papp's own words:

This does not mean that people should not strive to get their heart's desire or to change but simply that the consequences of doing so are unpredictable, filled with unexpected twists and ironic turns. If the therapist can be aware of the rich complexities involved in changing a system, he/she can use those complexities in the service of producing change (p.12).

The question at this point is this: what is the social worker to do? How can he or she work with the client to promote change, while respecting his or her dilemma? We'll return to this question later, but first we need to examine some other important ideas relating to the construct of change.

Change that is good and change that is bad. Clients present to social workers a wide range of problems, and in many instances the assumption is that the problem is bad or unpleasant; certainly, it is something to be ameliorated or eliminated. However, the worker also needs to understand that while change may be desirable, the outcome may not necessarily be good. For example, many years ago one of the authors worked with a client who complained he was nonassertive in his marriage. Over time and in a variety of therapy contexts (e.g., group therapy, psychoeducational group, individual therapy), the client learned to be assertive. However, it was not too long before the client's wife was on the phone complaining that therapy had ruined her husband and her marriage. The client subsequently reported he was miserable. It wasn't until the wife was included in the process and had a chance to participate in negotiating the goals of therapy that she accepted the behavioral changes her husband had worked so hard to bring about.

Posivitist/objectivist versus constructionist/constructivist view of change. If we adopt a posivitist or objectivist world view, change is directly related to our notions of causality; specifically, cause, instrument, process, time, and effect. For example, when change occurs, we typically think in terms of who or what caused or effected the change. This may or may not include the concept of an instrument or tool as an extension of the person or thing that caused the change. In cybernetics, the cause or agent of change is referred to as the operator.

Invariably, we also consider who or what was acted upon or affected. The cybernetic term for the person or thing affected by change is the operand. Finally, our conceptualization of change may include some representation of the process of change as well as certain temporal features (i.e., change that occurred slowly over a period of time or change that was sudden, unpredictable, and rapid). The term operation is used in cybernetics to tag or label the process of change or transformation.

Here is a simple but fun example that helps illustrate these cybernetic concepts:

1. Write the word HAL on a piece of paper.
2. As in a very simple code, associate with each letter in the alphabet its numeric position e.g., A=1, B=2, C=3, etc.) Below each letter in the word HAL write the corresponding code number.
3. Now, add 1 to each of the three numbers that correspond to H, A, and L.
4. Convert the numeric results back into the corresponding letters of the alphabet.
5. The result is IBM.
6. Now, recall that the name of the computer in Arthur C. Clarke's classic science fiction novel Spacy Odyssey: 2001 was HAL 9000.

Clarke included this little novelty in his book to illustrate a simple cybernetic problem representing the operand (HAL), the operation (converting the letters to numbers, adding 1, and then converting the numbers back to letters), and the operator (you, the paper, the writing instrument, the writing surface, etc.) All these elements, in combination, form a system.

On the other hand, we can adopt a constructivist or constructionist perspective, and our notions of cause and effect are no longer linear; rather, they are circular, multicausal, and multivariate.

Cybernetic/mechanistic view of systems versus the biological/ecological view. Human systems are described in different ways by different authors. For example, one can describe systems as machines, mechanisms, or even circuits. When we use these types of concepts and terms to describe a system, we are using mechanistic metaphors. The professional literature also contains references to systems as biological entities. In this case, a system may be described as a living organism that adapts and accommodates to its environment. The organism's or system's fit in the larger environment, its procurement of a niche, is sometimes defined in terms of coping. When these ideas are utilized to depict a system, we are using biological and/or ecological metaphors. A system can also be described in terms of communication; that is, the exchange of information, news of difference, difference that makes a difference, rules of exchange, the content and process of messages, and communication about communication, also known as meta-communication. Metaphors of this class are informational.

Others have written about specific systems (e.g., families) in terms of metaphors. For example, Rosenblatt (1994) identified metaphors such as the family as an entity and a system as well as boundary, structure, system control, and communication metaphors. In a somewhat different vein, Breunlin, Schwartz, and Mac Kune-Karrer (1992) discussed family systems in terms of general metaphors or what they called metaframeworks. These included internal family system, sequences, organization, development, multicultural, and gender metaframeworks.

First order change and second order change. First and second order change are related concepts derived from systems theory. Sometimes referred to as a zero sum game, first order change involves a shift in one element of a system that is offset or cancelled out by a equal or comparable counter change in at least one other element of that same system. The overall, emergent properties of the system remain the same.

To use a numeric example, a change of +5 in a system is offset by a -5 change elsewhere in the system. The net effect is no change or zero change. This type of change can take many different forms. For example, erratic, eccentric behavior may be abandoned by one family member only to be taken up by another family member. Or, the underfunctioning of one member of a work system may be offset by the compensatory, overfunctioning of coworkers.

On the other hand, second order change is difference over time in how elements or components of a system relate to or transact with one another. In short, the rules of the system are altered. When second order change occurs, certain behaviors and conditions become constrained while others become possible, perhaps even probable. To illustrate, imagine a group of young people playing baseball. There are two teams. Each member of each team has a position with related functions or responsibilities. The rules baseball govern the behavior of the players within the context the game. Now, imagine that this same group of people move to an adjacent field, change equipment, adjust their numbers, and begin playing soccer. The rules have changed and so have the relationships between players. Beyond this, certain aspects of the environment have changed as well (e.g., the field, the ball, the physical arrangement of the players). While there is still room for first order change in this context (e.g., one team's score is matched by the other team's score), the more significant or important change is at the level of rules. Hearkening back to Bateson (1972), the change in rules is a difference that makes a difference.

Continuous and discontinuous change. Change is continuous if it is extended or prolonged without a break or interruption. Continuous change occurs at a gradual, regular, and predictable rate over time. If the change process can be segmented (e.g., viewed in terms of stages or phases), then those segments are thought to be connected.

In contrast, discontinuous change is characterized by short, rapid, irregular, and unpredictable breaks or interruptions. Miller and Baca (2001) used the term quantum change to get at the same concept.

Spontaneous and deliberate change. Unplanned, naturally occurring change is spontaneous. Premeditated or planned change that involves conscious, human volition is considered to be deliberate.

Conscious and unconscious change. Change that is consciously willed or that occurs in one's awareness is conscious. Unconscious change occurs out of one's awareness or it is motivated by one's unconscious.

Structural and functional change. Alteration in the form, content, organization, or architecture of something is referred to as structural change. Functional change occurs when a discernable difference in the purpose of something, either through a specific action or collection of behaviors or processes, is observed.

Environmental and contextual change. Environmental change is any variation in the collective, external and internal conditions that affect the existence, growth, and well being of one or more organisms.

A context comprises of portions of a discourse or treatise that immediately precede and follow a related or connected passage that is quoted or cited in some way. If any aspect of a context is varied in any way, contextual change occurs. Usually, this leads to a shift in the meaning of the quoted passage.

Relational or transactional change. Change is thought of in terms of two basic units: the dyad (two people) and the threesome or triad (three people). A problematic or dysfunctional threesome is called a triangle.

One could discuss change in relationships in terms of dyads, triads, and larger systems (e.g., Heider's Balance Theory, game theory and the formation of coalitions, Bowen's ideas about triangles), etc., but I will save that for a later posting.

Location of change. Locus of change refers to the relative site or location of change, usually in general spatial terms. For example, a change that we perceive occurring in the environment is typically viewed as an external change. On the other hand, a shift in one's thinking or emotional state (i.e., one's psyche) is framed as an internal change.

Changes in state, properties, or characteristics. These are changes in an entity's attributes such as height, weight, mass, composition, form, personality, or behavior. With regard to behavior changes, these are typically thought of in terms of frequency, duration, or intensity.

Changes in time. Change can be thought of as occurring in the past, the present, and/or the future. Physicists refer to the arrow of time, usually meaning that events occur in a sequence (e.g., Time 1, Time 2, Time 3...Time n) with Time 1 preceding Time 2, but those who are enamored with the concept of time travel will be pleased to know that the arrow of time can be bi-directional. I suppose it all has to do with the math, its underlying assumptions, and how it---as a notational system---models the world.

Dimensions of Change and the SET Model

Cognitive change. Change in the cognitive domain involves not just content but also process. Most people can readily change what they think about. It is a little more of a challenge to alter or change how one thinks about a particular thing. One way to think about shifting one's thought processes is in terms of how thoughts are represented. Bandler and Grinder (1976) used the construct of representational systems or sensory modalities as the basis for a variety of change techniques collectively referred to as neuro-linguistic programming. Visualization is an example of a representation system or sensory modality. Bandler and Grinder argue that what we call thinking is actually the mental representation of various sensory experiences singly or in combination. So, to change how one thinks involves changing the sensory modality or modalities in which a particular thought or experience is represented. While this may seem trivial, the clinical implications are quite staggering.

Affective change. Affective or emotional change involves an alteration in how a person feels about any particular thing. It is not unusual for a client, who presents to a social worker, to complain about not feeling well or not feeling good about his or her life or a particular situation in life. Generally, we believe that people do better if they feel good. Naturally, then, a goal of social work is to help people alter their feelings.

Behavioral change. Bringing about change in behavior or the covert and overt actions of an individual can be a challenge for any social worker. The illusion that most novice social workers have to work through is the idea that they promote or bring about change in clients. This perspective crumbles quickly when a worker realizes that a client can choose to change or remain the same, and there is not a lot the worker can do about this---nor should she.

Volitive change. Volitive change relates to change in the will or intention of the client. A potential trouble spot in this arena is that the worker may want the client to want to change when the client has no desire to be different or behave differently. A paradox develops because the client can never satisfy the worker. A client who complies is not changing because he or she wants to, it is because the worker is directing or requesting the change. Given this, the client can never satisfy the worker because the act of change is not spontaneous or self-motivated.

Spiritual change. St. Francis Xavier's spiritual exercises presuppose a triadic relationship between the spiritual seeker, a spiritual mentor, and God. The dance involves the development of each person's relationship to the other plus God. The context of change is the relationship and the relationship extends beyond the seeable, knowable world of the five senses.

Biological/Physical change. (See my comments earlier in this blog. One who places a premium on this type of change will be inclined to use physical and mechanical interventions to promote change. For example, the physical therapist uses exercise and various forms of therapy to promote improvement (i.e., change) in motor functioning. A physician will prescribe medication (i.e., chemicals or compounds) to facilitate change in mood, affect, behavior, etc.

Strategies of Change

I am short on time, so I will only make a couple of comments here. VanGundy (1988) described his approach to problem definition, problem structure, general problem-solving (he offers a model). He identified the uses and misuses of creative problem-solving techniques and presents a classification system containing 105 techniques. One interesting notion was his idea of preproblem-solving. He also discussed redefining (redefinitional techniques) and analyzing problems (analytical techniques); generating ideas (techniques for idea generation such as analogies, assumption reversals, listing, metaphors, etc.); and evaluating and selecting ideas. He concluded with a discussion of eclectic and miscellaneous techniques.

In a subsequent posting, I will explore ideas concerning behavioral or action-oriented strategies, compliance- and noncompliance-based approaches, insight-oriented strategies, paradoxical or strategic methods, spiritual transformation, pharmacological strategies (better living through chemistry), and physical strategies (e.g., coercion and force, methods popular in military, criminal justice, and some governmental systems).

More comments to follow when I remember to blog-on and write some more. I would appreciate your feedback and comments if you have the time.

Jay Memmott

My First Blog

I am a college professor at a small mid-western university. I teach social work courses to both undergraduate and graduate students. I also maintain a small psychotherapy private practice in a nearby community. My work is primarily with substance abusers, but I also see individuals, couples, and families that are budened with other types of problems. My work revolves around a central theme: change. Over the years, I have learned a few lessons that I would like to share with my readers, whoever they may be. For today, I will discuss two fundamental principles of human behavior that I have found to be true.

First, people have a right to fail. When I started out as a social worker almost 30 years ago, I thought failure was a bad thing. However, I have learned that failure can be a good thing. Like many other things in life, it is what you do with it that makes a difference. Some people stop trying when they fail and perhaps they should. In other cases, it might be that they should persist but they do not. Still, there are other people who, after they fail, fail step back, examine the situation, and try again. They may redouble their efforts or try a different approach. In this sense they can do one of three things:

1. Do something different (a matter of content).
2. Do something differently (a matter of process).
3. Do some combination of 1 and 2.

Perhaps they succeed; perhaps they fail. Many people will stop at this point, but others still persist. If, at first you don't succeed, then try (and fail) again. I believe what happens is that the persistent ones begin to learn from their mistakes. They do not attain the outcome they want, so they learn to adjust their behaviors until they eventually succeed; that is, they achieve the outcome that they do want.

Another thing I have learned in my work with people is that the first thing a person needs to do is often the last thing he or she wants to do. Some observers would say that the individual's behavior flies in the face of common sense. I have found that our beliefs and their attendant emotions can turn in on us, keeping us stuck. In some instances, the result is our own demise. For instance, the last thing an alcoholic or drug dependent person wants is to stop using his or her drug or drugs of choice. By the same token, stopping use is the first thing that he or she should do.

Well, thank you for taking time to read this blog. I hope you will return to read my forthcoming comments.

Jay Memmott