Competency #2: Research and analyze dual relationships

A dual relationship occurs when a social worker relates to a client “in more than one relationship, whether professional, social, or business” (National Association of Social Workers, 2008, 1.06c). So, for example, a dual relationship exists when a social worker serves both as a client’s clinician and friend, or clinician and sexual partner, etc.

While many in the social work field believe that dual relationships should be avoided “at all costs,” others argue that such relationships should be “situationally and contextually determined” and that “being too dogmatic about avoiding dual relationships diminishes the essence and authenticity of social work” (Dewane, 2010). After much reflection and research, I’ve come to side with the latter camp. Let me explain why.

* * * * *

The NASW Code of Ethics does not prohibit dual relationships in general. Rather, it prohibits dual relationships that involve: (1) “conflicts of interest that interfere with the exercise of professional discretion and impartial judgment” (1.06a), (2) “a risk of exploitation or potential harm to the client” (National Association of Social Workers, 2008, 1.06c), and (3) sexual relations (1.09).

Similarly, the Supervised Visitation Network’s Code of Ethics prohibits dual relationships that involve conflicts of interest and—directly quoting the NASW—that involve “a risk of exploitation or potential harm to the client” ( Supervised Visitation Network, 3).

* * * * *

Reamer adduces dual relationships that, based on the NASW Code of Ethics, are undoubtedly unethical: “social workers who become sexually involved with current clients, recruit and collude with clients to bill insurance companies fraudulently, or influence terminally ill clients to include social workers in clients’ wills” (p. 122).

But some dual relationships are not so obviously unethical. Here Reamer (2003) adduces some situations in which social workers “have an opportunity to benefit from clients’ unique knowledge”—for example, when a social worker having car problems happens to have a client who is a mechanic (pp. 127-128). There is, of course, clearly the potential here for an unethical dual relationship, where the worker “engages with the client in a self-serving manner and where the social worker’s judgment and services may be shaped and influenced by his or her access to [the] client’s specialized knowledge” (p. 128). 

On the other hand, “relatively brief, casual, and non-exploitative conversations with clients concerning topics on which clients are expert may empower clients, facilitate therapeutic progress and the delivery of both clinical and nonclinical services, and challenge traditionally hierarchical relationships between social workers and clients” (Reamer, 2003, p. 128).

Situations can also arise in which social workers start to develop personal relationships with clients. This can happen when social workers accept invitations to attend life events of their clients (e.g., graduation ceremonies, baptisms) and when they accept small gifts. Neither of these actions can be universally condemned; rather, each can be appropriate in some situations and inappropriate in others.

Let’s look at gift giving. Reamer (2003) writes that a client’s gift “may carry great meaning,” revealing “the client’s fantasies about a friendship or more intimate relationship with the social worker” (p. 126). Client who wrongly believe that they are friends with their social worker might be more likely to consider professional criticism from that social worker as a personal attack; consequently, they might be less receptive to feedback. 

On the other hand, Reamer (2003) writes, clients’ gifts often represent “nothing more than an appreciative gesture” (p. 126). Refusing such a gift might deeply offend some clients and thus hinder the work being done. Refusing a client’s home-cooked meal, for instance, might “violate the family’s deep-seated norms related to offering food to guests” (p. 130).

Another relevant example—one in which the right course of action cannot be universalized—involves disclosing personal information to clients. Many, rooted in the psychoanalytic tradition, hold that this creates a personal relationship with those clients and ultimately harms them. According to this view, “the avoidance of self-disclosure [is] necessary for the development and resolution of a transference neurosis” (Rosenblum, 1998, pp. 538-539).[1] 

But more recent scholars have questioned the doctrine of non-disclosure, claiming that it contradicts the social work profession’s emphasis on empowerment. Freud and Krug (2002) write that non-disclosure tends to heighten transference (p. 486), something that must be minimized for “a client-empowering relationship” to occur—that is, a relationship that is “collaborative and egalitarian, open and sharing” (p. 491).

* * * * *

In sum, I have concluded that dual relationships are not always wrong. Every potential dual relationship must be critically evaluated. Does that potential relationship involve “conflicts of interest that interfere with the exercise of professional discretion and impartial judgment”? If so, then it must be discarded. Does it involve “a risk of exploitation or potential harm to the client”? If so, then it must be discarded. If not, then the relationship might be appropriate and in fact beneficial to the client.

* * * * *

Dewane, C.J. (2010). Respecting boundaries: The don’ts of dual relationships. Social Work Today, 10(1). Retrieved from http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/012610p18.shtml

Freud, S., & Krug, S. (2002). Beyond the code of ethics, part II: Dual relationships revisited. Families in Society, 83(5-6), 483-492.

National Association of Social Workers. (2008). Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Retrieved from http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp

Reamer, F.G. (2003). Boundary issues in social work: Managing dual relationships. Social Work, 48(1), 121-133.

Rosenblum, S. (1998). Abstinence anonymity and the avoidance of self-disclosure. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 18(4), 538-549.

The Supervised Visitation Network. (2009). Supervised Visitation Network (SVN) code of ethics. Retrieved from http://www.svnetwork.net/code-of-ethics.asp

* * * * *

Notes

[1] In other words, this theory holds that, when therapists self-disclose, their clients stop seeing them as transference objects and start to see them as they really are, thus damaging the therapeutic process.