Revitalising the concept of surface and depth: An analytical tool for critical reflection

In the political and cultural contexts of the 21st century, the analytical concept of ‘surface and depth’ proves useful in understanding how knowledge in international social work research, theory, and practice is interrelated with logic involving cultural, political, and professional understandings (Howe, 1996). In what follows, we review how the scientific, academic disciplines and theories of social problems, mental illness, and social work have evolved in parallel with a more societal and political movement in knowledge. A celebration of liberal values and the autonomy of the individual has in recent years coincided with the emergence of what we call a ‘postmodern’ neoliberal age, where academic truth and knowledge have become relative to time and place (Spector & Kitsuse, 1977). Since then, social constructionism has gradually developed in a variety of ways. The construction of social problems can be studied as embedded in interactional, institutional, and wider management technological settings (Best, 2017; Miller & Holstein, 1993; Rose & Miller, 2010). While social constructionism has been and still is popular in the universities, the parallel knowledge used to manage the institutions and populations of society draws on empirical knowledge of scientific clarity, reliability, and objectivity. The convergence of these parallel movements in knowledge creates particular conditions and a limited epistemology for critical reflection. This article demonstrates how the analytical concept of 'surface and depth' proves helpful in this development.