Humans naturally create a lifetime of stories—stories of childhood, educational experiences, traumas, and current relationships. In fact, you can probably point to many details about your life thus far, on each of these topics.
Social workers carry these personal stories with them in their interactions with clients. Sometimes these stories arise verbally during a session, and other times they are divulged indirectly through clothing or office artwork. For instance, a diploma on the wall reveals the social worker’s school and credentials. Because of the potentially negative effect of self-disclosure, social workers need to be aware of how they may be sharing personal details of their life with a client.
In this Discussion, you analyze a social worker-client conversation for signs of self-disclosure, as well as the effect that disclosure had on the interview.
watch the Southside Community Services video listed in this week’s Learning Resources.
Identify and describe the moment the social worker self-disclosed to the client.
Explain how the self-disclosure affected the interview process.
Did it create a tense environment or one of comfortableness?
Describe the positive and negative aspects of the self-disclosure with this client.
Would you have self-disclosed with this client? Why, or why not?
Sample Solution
eace and security. This is upheld by Vittola, who suggests proportionality again to legitimize activity: ‘care should be taken where evil doesn’t offset the potential advantages (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is additionally upheld by Frowe who makes sense of it is legitimate to inadvertently kill, at whatever point the soldier has full information on his activities and tries to finish his point, however it would include some major disadvantages. Be that as it may, this doesn’t conceal the reality the accidental actually killed guiltless individuals, showing corruption in their activities. Along these lines, it relies again upon proportionality as Thomson contends (Frowe (2011), Page 141). This prompts question of what fits the bill to be a warrior, and whether it is legal to kill each other as soldiers. Soldiers are individuals who are involved straightforwardly or by implication with the conflict and it is legitimate to kill ‘to protect the blameless from hurt… rebuff criminals (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as referenced above regular citizen can’t be hurt, showing warriors as the main genuine focuses on, one more state of jus in bello, as ‘we may not utilize the sword against the people who have not hurt us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ furthermore, Frowe recommended warriors should be recognized as warriors, to stay away from the presence of close quarters combat which can wind up in a higher demise count, for instance, the Vietnam War. Additionally, he contended they should be essential for the military, carry weapons and apply to the guidelines of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This proposes Frowe looks for a fair, simply battle between two members staying away from non-soldier passings, yet couldn’t this prompt higher demise rate for warriors, as the two sides have generally equivalent opportunity to win since both utilize comparative strategies? By the by, seemingly Frowe will contend that warrior can legitimately kill one another, showing this is simply, which is likewise upheld by Vittola, who states: ‘it is legitimate to draw the blade and use it against transgressors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’ furthermore, Vittola communicates the degree of military strategies utilized, yet never arrives at a resolution regardless of whether it’s legitimate to continue these activities, as he continually tracked down a center ground, where it tends to be legal to do things like this yet never consistently (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is upheld by Frowe, who estimates the authentic strategies as per proportionality and military need. It depends>
