Theories in Social work
Components of Reflection Assignments: Must be at least 4 paragraphs.(it CAN be longer) .3-7 sentences in each paragraph. Please be sure to follow outlined components below.
1st paragraph.. What was the reading ABOUT?
2nd paragraph.. What aspects of this reading offers you a better understanding of your role as a human services worker?
3rd paragraph. . What if any, new information did you gain from this reading?
4th paragraph..Was the information in this article IMPORTANT to your future career? If so.in what way? If notwhy not?
______________
Suzanne Taylor Sutphin, Ph.D., is a Research Assistant Professor at The Center for Child and Family Studies in the
College of Social Work at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, SC; Shannon McDonough, MA, is an Instructor
of Social Sciences at Allen University in Columbia, SC; and Amber Schrenkel is a 2013 MSW graduate of the College of
Social Work at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, SC.
Copyright 2013 Advances in Social Work Vol. 14 No. 2 (Fall 2013), 501-517
The Role of Formal Theory in Social Work Research: Formalizing Family
Systems Theory
Suzanne Taylor Sutphin
Shannon McDonough
Amber Schrenkel
Abstract: Formal theories are critical to accumulating knowledge through scientific
research to advance the discipline and practice. The use of formal theory in social work
research is currently absent. Family Systems Theory (FST) is commonly used in social
work; however, it currently lacks the criteria to be considered a formal theory. We use
FST to demonstrate the formalization process and its potential effect on social work
research and practice. Currently, FST is being used as a perspective, to develop theories
and models used in marriage and family therapy, and to develop assessment tools. We
identify the components of a formal theory while presenting a formal version of FST.
Directions for future research are suggested including the benefits of using formal theory
to direct scientific research and guide the development of evidence-based practice.
Keywords: Family systems theory, formal theory, social work research
The fact that human beings create theories testifies to their genius and
uniqueness as the only known organisms who are able to conceptualize their own
experience (Becvar & Becvar, 1982, p. 55).
Social science theories, especially theories of the family, are frequently used by
social work researchers and practitioners. However, like many theories applied in social
work, the critical components that make the theory scientifically testable are not
forthcoming. Therefore, much of the practice in social work related to family theories
does not have a solid scientific base. Formalizing theory involves developing the critical
components to increase its scientific testability with a focus on adding to cumulative
knowledge in the field. This is accomplished by ensuring the deductive logical
consistency of the theory, the clear definition of terms, and the explicit designation of the
scope conditions under which the theory applies. We focus on a commonly used
perspective in social work research, Family Systems Theory (FST), as an example of
formalizing a theory. This article briefly reviews the current state of theory in social
work, defines FST and how it is currently used in social work practice, and presents the
essential components of formal theories along with a formalized version of FST. Finally,
we suggest directions for future research relevant to formalized theories.
Theories in Social Work
The role of theory in social work research has long been critiqued. Kirk and Reid
(2002) argue that the current social work knowledge base is not the product of rigorous
scientific testing (p. 20). The authors also propose that the soft nature of social work
Sutphin, McDonough, Schrenkel/ROLE OF FORMAL THEORY IN SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH 502
knowledge impedes cumulative knowledge-building efforts (Kirk & Reid, 2002, p. 25).
Sibeon (1991) echoes that sentiment and points out that different types of social work
cognitions are drawn upon by practitioners in different historical periods, but their
common denominator is that, with very few exceptions, none of them are drawn from
academic disciplinary discourses (p. 143).
The professional concern is that while social work scholars identify many theories in
their research and practice, most are not formal theories, and many are merely
perspectives. This was evident in the work of Gentle-Genitty and colleagues (2007). The
authors rated articles in social work journals based on their inclusion of theory. Of their
sample of over 1,000 articles, only 6% met their more rigorous standard of including
theory with an empirical base. In fact, the authors found that most of the journals had
only a small focus on theory altogether. Gentle-Genitty and colleagues (2007) proposed
that theory discussion may be defined as a superficial description of the theory that does
not include exploration of the components or empirical base of the theory (p. 65).
Longstanding formal theories must have empirical support (Kirk & Reid, 2002). The
development, testing, and application of formal theories allows researchers to
systematically revise and expand theories and leads to cumulative knowledge, which,
ultimately, advances understanding of the phenomenon in question (Cohen, 1989; Freese,
1980; Payne, 1997; White, 2005). Turner (1998) proposes that theories used to solve
problems evident in real-world settings will ultimately strengthen the theory. Therefore,
formal theories can enhance both theoretical research as well as empirical research used
in real world applications.
As an example in the following sections, we will focus on one theory commonly used
in social work research and practice, Family Systems Theory (FST). We present an
overview of FST to provide a basis of formalizing the theory; it is not intended to be a
comprehensive review of the theory.
Family Systems Theory
Family Systems Theory describes the processes that affect the ideal functioning of a
family thereby causing disorder (Dore, 2008). The main purpose of FST is to inform the
understanding and interpretation of the cognitive, social, and emotional functioning of
individuals in society (Dore, 2008, p. 435). In therapeutic settings, FST emphasizes
treating the whole family when treating a deviant family member(s).i The causes of a
familys problems are viewed as circular and the therapist attempts to modify family
communication patterns to alter the interactions so that the family returns to a healthier
state of functioning (Howe, 1991).
Families are seen as systems that may become dysfunctional and that can return to a
healthier state of functioning, referred to as homeostasis, by altering communication
patterns and interactions, internal and external boundaries, and/or redefining or
restructuring family roles and subsystems. Payne (1997) describes that some scholars
propose that individuals are dependent on systems such that informal systems (e.g.,
families), are nested in formal systems, (e.g., communities, neighborhoods), which are
nested in societal systems, (e.g., schools, government). In other words, families are not
ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Fall 2013, 14(2) 503
only affected by their internal boundaries and interactions, but are also influenced by the
larger systems in which they reside.
Family Systems Theory in Social Work Practice
One of the motivators to use FST as the example in this process was because of its
utilization and applicability in social work research and practice. A review of literature on
FST in social work reveals that FST is applied in three main ways: (1) as a perspective to
approach a certain topic or research question, (2) as a model to treat families in
therapeutic settings, and (3) for the development of assessment tools.
Family Systems Theory as a Perspective
In exploring how FST is applied in social work research, a majority of articles
reviewed use the theory as a perspective by adopting the view that individuals in crisis
should be evaluated within the family system and that interventions should involve the
whole family in order to have any effect on the individual in question (Bartle-Haring,
1997; Bilgin, Cenkseven, & Satar, 2007; Bradbury & Marsh, 1988; Bray & Harvey,
1991, 1992; Brooks, 1999; Brooks & Ronen, 2006; Delsing, Oud, De Bruyn, & van
Aken, 2003; Franck & Buehler, 2007; Hammer, Neal, Newsom, Brockwood, & Colton,
2005; Hughes & Gullone, 2008; Johnson, 2003; Katz, 1977; Richmond & Stocker, 2006,
2008; Skowron, 2000). FST as a perspective is also used to support the application of
family preservation services (Cimmarusti, 1992; Walton & Smith, 1999) and family
group conferencing (Brooks & Ronen, 2006).
These articles still fail to test a formal theory. Rather, they briefly discuss FST by
laying out a few concepts and assumptions from which they form hypotheses or research
questions. Without testing hypotheses that are logically derived from a formalized theory,
FST cannot be properly tested and revised to produce cumulative knowledge. While
informal theories and perspectives can play a crucial role in the early development of a
formal theory, using theories without the intent of building a formal theory does not
accumulate knowledge due to the lack of technical and formal language and the
inconsistent definition of terms, which leave perspectives too open to interpretation
(Klein & Jurich, 1993).
Family Systems Theory as Part of Models Used in Therapeutic Settings
Another factor in the need to formalize FST is its use in developing techniques and
models used in marriage and family therapy. Becvar and Becvar (1982) describe in detail
how systems theory can be used in family therapy. The authors propose that the theory
allows for the family to be treated as a network of systems including the individuals, the
family system, and the social system in which they live (Becvar & Becvar, 1982). Several
therapeutic techniques and models have been developed that use tenets of systems theory
and FST when helping families in stressful or crisis situations.
Therapeutic techniques using aspects of systems theory. Many well-regarded
therapeutic techniques have been developed using aspects of systems theory. Based on
the works of Haley and Madanes, strategic family therapy uses aspects of systems theory
Sutphin, McDonough, Schrenkel/ROLE OF FORMAL THEORY IN SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH 504
by shifting the focus in therapy from the individual to the family and the role of the
therapist in developing strategies to address the problem. The goals of the techniques
used in the therapy focus on changing the family structure to modify behavior (Madanes,
1981). Importantly, Haleys therapy strategies call for therapists to examine the
individual needing treatment within the context of the family and the larger society
(Haley, 1972, 1978).
Developed by Minuchin, structural family therapy also views the individual in the
context of his family unit and social environment (Minuchin, 1974). In this form of
therapy, the family and the therapist are treated as a system to monitor behavior. The
family system receives the intervention to modify behavior and promote family
functioning.
As proposed by Gottman, the sound marital house focuses on marital therapy as a
means to predict various outcomes and satisfaction in relationships and to identify
qualities that make for a lasting relationship such as establishing a friendship in the
marital couple. The theory focuses on a systematic approach in that the behavior of one
partner affects the other (Gottman, 1999; Gottman, Driver, & Tabares, 2002).
Emotionally focused couple therapy (EFT) is a synthesis of approaches that are
designed to help couples in crisis navigate their emotions and emotional responses. The
therapy draws on perspectives and premises of experimental therapies, family systems
theory, and attachment theory. The authors point out that different family therapists use
different techniques of breaking negative family cycles when incorporating FST into their
therapies (Johnson & Denton, 2002).
Models using aspects of FST. Several models have been developed using FST. The
Double ABCX Family Crisis Model incorporates aspects of systems theory by examining
how stressors, such as becoming a parent, impact the family as a whole (McCubbin &
Patterson, 1983). The Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems, based largely
on systems theory, is designed to treat family systems by integrating cohesion, flexibility,
and communication to promote family functioning (Olson & Gorall, 2003).
The Beavers Systems Model is based on five central concepts related to family
functioning, family competence, behavioral style, family assessment, and task
competence to assess functionality. The Beavers Systems Model also incorporates
elements of systems theory by examining the family system when determining how a
therapist should engage the family (Beavers & Hampton, 2003). Franck and Buehler
(2007) developed a model from FST, which lays out general knowledge claims and
hypotheses to test concepts pertaining to marital hostility and parental depressive affect
as stressors for youth.
Using Family Systems Theory to Inform Assessment Tools
FST has been used to support an argument for the use of social work assessment tools
(Asarnow, Berk, & Baraff, 2009; Bilgin et al., 2007; Bray & Harvey, 1992; Brooks,
1999; Brooks & Ronen, 2006; Cimmarusti, 1992; Martin, Miller-Johnson, Kitzman, &
Emery, 1998; Walton & Smith, 1999). Many studies reveal a number of assessment tools
ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Fall 2013, 14(2) 505
that may be used to identify and measure instantiations of important concepts in FST
such as the Parent-Adolescent Relationship Questionnaire/Inventory (PARQ) (Bilgin et
al., 2007), the Family System Test (FAST) (Gehring, Debry, & Smith, 2001), the Family
Adaptability and Cohesion Scales (FACES) (Olson & Gorall, 2003) and the Self-Report
Inventory (Beavers & Hampton, 2003).
Since FST has many important real world applications, it is therefore beneficial to
formalize FST. Thus, a formalized version of FST could easily be tested using these
available measurement tools, which would strengthen its explanatory and predictive
power as a scientific theory. This would also be helpful in the development of evidence-
based practices as discussed in future research.
The following theory constitutes what we identify as the core of FST. We describe
the critical components of formal theory and demonstrate the formalization process of
FST. We then discuss the applicability of the theory for social work research and
practice.
Formalizing Family Systems Theory
Theory as a concept has previously been used in many different ways and defined
to include other concepts such as ideas or hypotheses. This can make any generalization
impossible, and promotes mindless eclecticism and a lack of rigorous analysis due to
an anything goes approach to theory (Doherty, Boss, LaRossa, Schumm, & Steinmetz,
1993, pp. 18-19), which is found to be common in social work research and practice.
According to Papero (2006) The term theory contains within it the assumption that such
propositions represent the best current thinking about the phenomenon, an established
framework within which known facts can be explained. From such theoretical thinking
comes all therapeutic methodology (p. 45). Thus, social work research could extensively
benefit from formalizing theories.
Since the accumulation of knowledge and findings is a key function of theories
(White, 2005), we argue that using formal theories, from which hypotheses can be
logically derived, is the ideal approach to conducting research. In fact, the process of
building and revising formal theories is a primary way to advance theory and knowledge,
while also lending widespread credibility to the field in question (White, 2005).
Components of Formal Theory
The scientific method distinguishes theories from perspectives. Whereas perspectives
offer a way of thinking about the world, theories provide a way to test logically derived
hypotheses about why things happen (Payne, 1997). Based on the scientific method,
theory must explain in a provable way why something happens, not simply describe it
in an organized way or provide a way of thinking about the world (Payne 1997, p. 35).
Cohen (1989) defines a scientific theory as a set of interrelated statements, some of
which are definitions and some of which are relationships assumed to be true, together
with a set of rules for the manipulation of these statements to arrive at new statements
(p. 71). Thus, formal theory requires a number of properties that distinguishes it from
informal theories, quasi-theories, or perspectives. Specifically, formal theories must
Sutphin, McDonough, Schrenkel/ROLE OF FORMAL THEORY IN SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH 506
consist of: meta-theory, primitive and explicitly defined terms, scope conditions,
logically structured propositions that are interrelated and testable, and derived
propositions (Cohen, 1989; Freese, 1980).
All of these components of a formal theory allow for theory to be intersubjectively
testable (Cohen 1989; Freese 1980). That is, formal theory reduces the latitude for
multiple subjective interpretations of the theory, which fosters empirical evaluations of
the theory that are more consistently valid among different researchers. This also allows
for research programs to operate efficiently and productively (Cohen, 1989; Wagner &
Berger, 1985). Therefore, when a formal theory is properly tested, knowledge gained
from testing the theory becomes cumulative. Ultimately, If you know theory you can use
it. If you dont you cant (as cited in Gilbert, 2006, p. 3).
Meta-Theory
Meta-theory is essentially a theory about a theory. Specifically, meta-theory is often
used as a source of perspectives that overarch sociological theory (Ritzer, 1990, p. 4).
In other words, meta-theory is developed through a systematic study of a theory. The role
of this type of meta-theory is to provide an overarching perspective that explains the
foundational concepts, ideas, and statements behind a theory, including general
statements about how society operates. The following meta-theory developed for the
formalized version of FST includes general systems theory as a foundational view of
society within which family systems exist. Also, the following meta-theory presents some
of the foundational concepts and ideas of FST to provide a general foundation upon
which the formalized theory is based.
Family Systems Theory. Family systems theory was developed in the 1960s from
general systems theory (Dore, 2008). As it relates to the social sciences, general systems
theory provides a link between the macro and micro levels of analysis and shows the
interconnected relationship between the two levels. An important feature of general
systems theory is to regard the system as a whole and not solely focus on the individual
parts to understand how the system works. FST describes the processes by which families
that have moved out of homeostasis (the ideal state of family functioning) return to
homeostasis. Homeostasis can be thought of as a balance between a familys level of
enmeshment (dependence) and disengagement (interdependence).
Applying systems theories to families views individual family members in the
context of the whole family and focuses on relationships between family members
(Becvar & Becvar, 1982; Howe, 1991). The theory focuses on the effects of a cycle of
interactions and behaviors that cause problems within families (Becvar & Becvar, 1982).
Information is the energy that maintains the system. Family systems with a higher rate of
energy flow are less likely to be stabilized. Systems that do not properly process energy
flow are pushed toward a state of maximum disorder or entropy. That is, they are pushed
out of homeostasis.
What Causes a Family to Move Out of Homeostasis? As described below, since FST
explains the process by which families move back into homeostasis, it is important to
review the types of stressors that can initially cause a family to move out of homeostasis.
ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Fall 2013, 14(2) 507
The book, Stress and the Family, reviews a number of stressors, both normative and
catastrophic, that can cause a family crisis (Figley & McCubbin, 1983; McCubbin &
Figley, 1983). Specific instances of family distress discussed, which can also be
identified as having the potential to move a family out of homeostasis, consist of both
normative stressors that families commonly face and catastrophic stressors, which are
much less common and often more debilitating (Figley & McCubbin, 1983; McCubbin &
Figley, 1983). Normative stressors include ambiguous boundaries in the marital
relationship, sexual development over the life course, various stresses of parenthood (e.g.,
financial, physical, and psychological stressors), adolescent development, stressors of
dual-career families (e.g., role strain, impact on children, balancing work and family),
divorce, single parenting, step parenting or blending families, environmental stress,
societal stress, and economic stress (McCubbin & Figley, 1983). Catastrophic stressors
discussed include chronic illness, drug abuse, physical abuse, abandonment, death,
unemployment, rape/sexual abuse, natural disasters, war, and captivity (Figley &
McCubbin, 1983).
Terms and Definitions
Without clearly defined terms, a theory cannot be validly tested. The precise
definition of terms provides a consensus among researchers regarding what exactly
constitutes a concept, which has implications for how it will be operationalized in any
derived hypotheses. When formalizing a theory, all terms which are included in other
definitions, in the scope conditions, and in the propositions must be defined. The
definitions are not written to be empirically testable themselves, but are written to be
operationalized in a number of ways in a variety of empirical settings.
All terms in a theory cannot be defined. The terms used in the theory are either
primitive or defined. Primitive terms have a widely agreed upon meaning and require no
written definition while defined terms consist of both primitive terms and other
previously defined terms used for specification of meaning. Terms should also be
presented in terminological order. Presenting terms in terminological order allows the
definitions to build upon each other, meaning new terms consist only of primitive terms
and previously defined terms.
Table 1 presents the defined terms of FST, as identified in the literature, used to
develop the formal theory. We have included a column that provides the citation for other
models that examine families as a system that use the same terms. For models that use
similar terms for the same concept, the term is also provided.
Scope Conditions
Scope conditions define under what circumstances a theory applies. Thus, a test of a
theory must fall under specified scope conditions for the test to be valid. This helps to
reduce a common problem found in social science research, where a theory is falsified
under one empirical examination while being supported by another. The goal is to relax
the scope conditions as the theory continues to be tested and applied in various conditions
to increase confidence in the applicability of the theory.
Sutphin, McDonough, Schrenkel/ROLE OF FORMAL THEORY IN SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH 508
Table 1. Defined Terms in Terminological Order*
Term Definition Terms From Other Models
System a group of interacting and
interdependent actors that function
individually to form a complex whole
Beavers & Hampton (2003);
Franck & Buehler (2007);
Johnson & Denton (2002); Haley
(1978); Madanes (1981);
McCubbin & Patterson (1983);
Minuchin (1974); Olson &
Gorall (2003)
Boundaries delineates what is inside or outside of
a system
Beavers & Hampton (2003);
Franck & Buehler (2007);
McCubbin & Patterson (1983);
Minuchin (1974)
Family a system that has: (1) two or more
interacting individuals, (2) related by
marriage, birth, or adoption or
voluntarily committed to each other
as a unit to promote well-being, (3)
identify themselves as a family
Beavers & Hampton (2003);
Franck & Buehler (2007); Haley
(1978); Madanes (1981);
McCubbin & Patterson (1983);
Minuchin (1974); Olson &
Gorall (2003)
Pattern the recognition of a repeated event by
an observer
Beavers & Hampton (2003);
Johnson & Denton (2002);
McCubbin & Patterson (1983);
Minuchin (1974)
Norm implicit or explicit guidelines for
behavior
Olson & Gorall (2003)
Relationship a norm-based pattern of interaction Beavers & Hampton (2003);
Olson & Gorall (2003)
Subsystem system in a larger system that has its
own boundaries and norms
Minuchin (1974)
Internal Boundary delineates subsystems within a
system
Minuchin (1974)
External
Boundary
delineates a system from the larger
social system
Beavers & Hampton (2003)
Emotional
Boundary
delineates what are appropriate levels
of attachment and characteristics of
behavior between two or more family
members
Family cohesion – Olson &
Gorall (2003)
Enmeshment absence of emotional boundaries
between family members
Beavers & Hampton (2003);
Minuchin (1974); Olson &
Gorall (2003)
ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Fall 2013, 14(2) 509
Table 1. (cont.)
Disengagement rigid emotional boundaries between
family members
Franck & Buehler (2007); Haley
(1978); McCubbin & Patterson
(1983); Minuchin (1974);
Gottman (1999); Olson & Gorall
(2003)
Hierarchical any system that ranks some persons
or groups above others
Haley (1978); Madanes (1981);
Minuchin (1974)
Homeostasis exists when there is equilibrium
between levels of disengagement and
enmeshment
Johnson and Denton (2002);
Minuchin (1974)
Balance – Beavers & Hampton
(2003); Madanes (1981);
McCubbin & Patterson (1983);
Olson & Gorall (2003)
Morphogenesis change in a system Flexibility – Olson & Gorall
(2003)
Transformation – Minuchin
(1974)
Family adjustment and
adaptation response (FAAR) –
McCubbin & Patterson (1983)
Morphostasis no change in a system Rigid flexibility – Olson & Gorall
(2003)
Inflexible style Beavers &
Hampton (2003)
Feedback Loop a communication and information
processing path that regulates
behavior among family members
Circular cycles – Johnson &
Denton (2002)
Feedback; transactional patterns
– Minuchin (1974)
Feedback process – Haley (1978)
Positive Feedback
Loop
a path of communication and
behavior that increases deviation
from homeostasis
Bonadaptation – McCubbin &
Patterson (1983)
Negative Sentiment Override –
Gottman (1999); Gottman,
Driver, & Tabares (2002)
Negative
Feedback Loop
a path of communication and
behavior that restores homeostasis
Positive Sentiment Override –
Gottman (1999); Maladaptation
– McCubbin & Patterson (1983)
Suprasystem environment of relationships within
which a system is embedded
–
Sutphin, McDonough, Schrenkel/ROLE OF FORMAL THEORY IN SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH 510
Table 1. (cont.)
Goal desired state that motivates behavior Gottman (1999); Haley (1978);
Madanes (1981); McCubbin &
Patterson (1983); Minuchin
(1974); Olson & Gorall (2003)
Self-reflexive the ability to observe and evaluate
oneself
–
Entropy maximum disorder in a system
Unbalanced – Olson & Gorall
(2003)
First-order
Change
an individual family member has
changed
First level balance – McCubbin
& Patterson (1983)
Second-order
Change
the family structure has changed Olson & Gorall (2003)
Self-regulating the internal ability to sustain the
family system
Minuchin (1974); Gottman
(1999)
* Note: Any undefined terms are considered primitive terms.
The scope of the theory carries important implications. For example, in a critique of
FST, Pam (1993) uses an example of a family therapist who used a systems approach to
resolve a disagreement between an administrator and an employee. The author argued
that the systems viewpoint of the therapist in examining the system effects instead of the
individuals was convoluted (Pam, 1993, p. 86). In formalizing FST, we limit the theory
to family systems, which we defined as part of our scope conditions. Restricting the
scope of the theory to family systems, as defined in the previous section, would prevent
this example from being used as a critique of FST because a relationship between
colleagues falls outside the scope of the theory. Therefore, we have identified the
following scope conditions.
This theory applies to families that:
1. are hierarchical
2. have boundaries
3. interact in patterns
4. have individuals who are interdependent
5. have rules
6. have subsystems
This theory applies to family systems that:
1. are self-reflexive
2. are goal-seeking
3. are self-regulating
ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Fall 2013, 14(2) 511
Propositions
Propositions are logically interrelated knowledge claims that make up the core of the
theory. Requiring the propositions to be logically interrelated reveals any contradictory
claims and allows for logical generations of new relationships or derivations. These
claims can be true or false. That is, theories that are truly scientific have propositions that
are able to be falsified (Kirk & Reid, 2002). Based on our review of the literature, as
described in the previous sections, we developed the following core set of propositions
where D = the level of disengagement and E = the level of enmeshment:
1. If D > E, then D must be decreased OR E must be increased (to make D=E) to
move toward homeostasis.
1a. If disengagement increases or enmeshment decreases, then the familys
internal boundaries become more rigid.
1b. If internal boundaries become more rigid, then the communication within and
across subsystems in the family system becomes more inhibited and infrequent.
2. If D < E, then E must be decreased OR D must be increased (to make D=E) to move toward homeostasis. 2a. If disengagement increases or enmeshment decreases, then the familys external boundaries become more permeable. 2b. If external boundaries become more permeable, then the family becomes more open to influence from the suprasystem. 2c. If the family is open to influence from the suprasystem that is unsupportive, then they are less likely to be in homeostasis. 3. If a family is not in homeostasis, then the family is moving towards a state of entropy. 4. If a family is moving towards a state of entropy, then they enter a (negative or positive) feedback loop. 4a. If the family enters a negative feedback loop, then they return to a morphostatic state of homeostasis. 4b. If the family enters a positive feedback loop, then the system moves to a morphogenetic state of homeostasis as the result of either a first order change or second order change. Discussion Dore (2008) proposes FST is the family theory that has the most relevance and salience for social work practice. Formalizing FST allows for more scientific research to be conducted in this area to further advance the discipline. Using a formal theory will allow for better implementation of the current uses of theory in social work models and assessment tools. The theory formalization process, as demonstrated in this article, significantly contributes to the literature by providing a solid basis to test the theory and Sutphin, McDonough, Schrenkel/ROLE OF FORMAL THEORY IN SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH 512 expand and develop certain aspects of the theory such as adding propositions and further defining the scope conditions under which the theory applies as discussed below. Herz and Johansson (2012) point to the shift in using the scientific method when exploring social problems. We propose that this is done successfully by formalizing theories. Through our formalization of FST, we hope to impress the need for the development and use of more formal theories in social work research. Formalizing theories allows for more accurate tests of the theory and leads to the accumulation of knowledge. An increase
