Towards an Understanding of Collective Wellbeing for Social Work Research & Practice

Background/Purpose: According to the NASW Code of Ethics, the primary mission of social work is to enhance human wellbeing. It is often assumed that we share a common definition of this term, both professionally and as a broader society. Indigenous, abolitionist, and community-oriented scholars, however, point us toward a more collective understanding of wellbeing that challenges the dominant “American individualism” perspective taken by much of academia (particularly, though not exclusively, in the U.S.), raising questions about how social workers imagine what it means to enhance human wellbeing. The study described here used an interpretative methodology and in-depth interview methods to explore how people understand and experience “wellbeing,” with the longer-term aim of considering how we align social work practice with a more nuanced and complex conceptualization of this key term.

Methods: This study was part of a community based participatory research project on safety and wellbeing, led by social workers in a small New England town from 2020-2024. Because the community wanted to be as inclusive as possible, the project was advertised through mailings, community meetings, and local organizations. Any resident 18 or over was eligible to participate. The lead researcher trained six volunteer social workers in active interviewing methods. Interviews were offered in-person, by phone, and by Zoom. The sample included 160 community members and was representative of the community’s population in most characteristics, although younger residents and Black residents were underrepresented. Interviews were transcribed using Otter AI software, and all transcripts were verified by the lead researcher during the initial round of analysis. Transcripts were then uploaded into NVivo, which the lead researcher used to conduct multiple rounds of coding, attending to interviewees’ use of language and mapping this language use across interviews. This process is grounded in the concept of the hermeneutic circle, as the researcher moves between transcripts to discern relationships and themes.

Results: Results demonstrate two broad conceptions of wellbeing: 1) having one’s basic human needs (housing, food, health) met, and 2) experiencing a sense of connection/belonging. While some interviewees focused on one or the other conception, most referenced both at different points in their interviews, highlighting the complex balance between individual and collective notions of wellbeing. When asked explicitly who is responsible for ensuring wellbeing, the vast majority of interviewees gave collective-oriented responses (i.e. “we are all responsible for each other’s wellbeing”), with only a handful focusing on individual responsibility.

Conclusions/Implications: The frequency with which interviewees used collective-oriented language to talk about wellbeing raises important questions about how social workers might approach enhancing human wellbeing in practice, employing community-based and community-driven interventions rather than emphasizing individual needs/services. The community involved in this project is indeed considering such practices, working with its public library as a hub for creating connection and belonging. While limited to members of a single community, this study provides an entry point into more in-depth exploration of the concept of wellbeing, as well as a case study of how social workers might shift their focus from individual to collective interventions.