Given the pragmatic perspective taken in this research, I work within several theoretical frameworks to address the multiple levels of functioning that hoarding can impact. Given that hoarding impacts the individual, their families, the broader
community, and the social systems, I have primarily used general systems theory as a way to understand these different levels of interaction. However, in understanding and
analyzing the data from participants’ points of view, I have also utilized a strengths-based perspective. The following sections outline general systems theory and the strengths-based perspective.
3.2.1 General systems theory
General systems theory provides a framework to allow an understanding of the multiple, overlapping, and often competing or conflicting, needs of individuals, groups, and communities involved in hoarding situations. With roots in both sociology and biology, systems theory was introduced to social work in the late 1950s using the name general systems theory, but was not popularized until the late 1970s (Robbin, Chatterjee
& Canda, 2012). Social systems theory “is a set of assumptions and concepts that seeks to explain the general patterns of behaviours exhibited by the functioning of social
systems and how social systems achieve well-being” (Dale, Smith, Norlin & Chess, 2009,
p. 18). Systems theory understands there to be multiple different systems operating simultaneously at different levels, each interacting and influencing one another. Higher level social systems affect the individuals, and individuals affect the larger social systems within which they exist (Greene, 2008). Systems theory offers an alternative to the historic medical model in which social work has roots (Greene, 2008). Given that much of the existing research that has been done on hoarding exists within a medical framework, systems theory offers a more holistic approach, viewing the individual and their
interactions with their environment.
Systems theory understands there to be three different levels at which systems operate. The micro level represents the individual, including “biological, psychological, spiritual, emotional, cognitive, recreational, and financial” factors (Rogers, 2013, p. 23), as well as “factors such age, gender, income, and ethnic background” (Rogers, 2013, p.
23). Meanwhile, the mezzo level “consists of elements in a person’s immediate environment, including family, friends, co-workers, neighborhood, work environment, church activities, local resources and services, and transportation” (Rogers, 2013, p. 23).
The broadest level is the macro level, which represents “larger social forces that might affect an individual, such as government policy, discrimination, oppression, social policy, economic conditions, social values and even historical events” (Rogers, 2013, p. 23).
Figure 1. Visual Representation of the Levels of Systems in General Systems Theory Systems theory uses the concept of holarchy to understand the interconnected nature of the various systems to which we belong. This term describes “the concentric organization of social systems into even large systems” (Dale et al., 2009, p. 9), whereby each system is not only made up of smaller systems, but is nested within a larger system (see Figure 1). Dale, Smith, Norlin and Chess (2009) outline some of the potential systems within the holarchy, including the individual, family, groups, bureaucracies, communities and society. These various systems interact constantly, transforming both the individual and the larger society (Dale et al., 2009). Significantly, systems theory places importance on the holistic nature of systems, whereby different systems are connected to and influence one another, operating as parts of a whole. Hoarding impacts the individual who hoards, as well as their families, neighbours, broader communities, and social systems. Therefore, systems theory is used in this study as a way to
understanding the multiple, intersecting and overlapping interactions between these different systemic levels.
3.2.2 Strengths-based perspective
Given that much of the existing literature on hoarding uses a medical model as its basis, examining the deficits of people who hoard in a clinical manner, there is a need for research that focuses on the experiences and perspectives of people who hoard. I also use a strengths-based perspective, giving primacy to the voice of the participants who hoard, rather than the workers involved in their cases. A strengths-based perspective takes the position that clients are necessarily a factor in their own healing. Bertolino (2010) writes that a strengths-based perspective is:
[A]n overarching philosophical perspective that sees people as having capabilities and resources within themselves and their social systems.
When cultivated, activated, and integrated with new experiences, understandings, ideas, and skills, these strengths help people to reduce pain and suffering, resolve concerns and conflicts, and cope more effectively with life stressors (p.12).
Using this perspective, I value the contributions of participants in this research as central and pivotal in the change process.
As a tool of social work practice, the strengths-based perspective has six foundational principles:
1. Every individual, group, family and community has strengths that precede interventions;
2. Trauma, abuse, illness and other struggles are harmful, and can also provide openings for strengths and resiliency;
3. Practitioners do not know the capacity limits of their clients, and must take their ambitions seriously;
4. Clients are best served through collaboration and a non-expert approach;
5. All environments have resources into which clients can tap;
6. Caring and caretaking must be valued societally (Saleeby, 2009).
As a social work student and practitioner, I have incorporated these principles into the perspective that I take in analyzing participants’ narratives and in the discussion of those findings.
Further to this, Sullivan and Rapp (2009) acknowledge that “while systems theory and ecological models may provide excellent templates for understanding human
development and behavior, it is decidedly more difficult to use this knowledge to effect desired change” (p. 220). The authors recognize that individuals need to access
appropriate resources in order to flourish within systems, and that often clients of social work practice are individuals who are unable to access those resources (Sullivan & Rapp, 2009). The authors note that the loss of participation of those individuals in social systems “thwarts both human and social development” (Sullivan & Rapp, 2009, p. 221).
Rather than focusing on absent resources, the strengths-based perspective “promotes matching the inherent strengths of individuals with naturally occurring resources in the social environment” (Sullivan & Rapp, 2009, p. 223). While this research seeks to identify gaps in services, I have also used a strengths-based perspective in promoting resources where participants have identified them.