Nonverbal Communication in Social Work Practice A person is a social being who cannot live without interaction with other people. Each day we enter social interactions where we are compelled to communicate; therefore, one should know and observe the principles of proper communication.
Through spoken words, only hard facts are conveyed. What is transmitted through nonverbal communication is a kind of reflection of our experience or emotions. Even when we do not speak, we express ourselves through body language, which is often more sincere than what we share verbally. For this reason, a large part of nonverbal expression occurs independently of our conscious awareness.
The relationship between a social worker and a client depends on mutual communication. Verbal language is the tool by which the helping professional gains the client’s trust. However, a client can only be truly helped when communication is two-way. Only then can we speak of effective communication. One of the main ways to achieve effectiveness is control of the nonverbal communication mentioned above.
Based on knowledge gathered from this subject area, we carried out a survey whose main goal was to indicate the interconnectedness and inseparability of social work and nonverbal communication. We examined whether positive nonverbal communication contributes to building trust more easily between client and social worker and what contributes to the effectiveness of the counseling process. We were also interested in the most common form of nonverbal communication on the client’s side and on the social worker’s side.
The research was conducted in the district town of Spišská Nová Ves with approximately 37,000 inhabitants and in the small village of Žehra below Spiš Castle, with approximately 2,300 inhabitants. A total of 13 observations were made.
In Spišská Nová Ves, we focused on the Town Hall and the districts of Podskála and Vilčurňa, where Roma people make up much of the population. At the Town Hall, social workers engage in telephoning various institutions such as debt collection agencies, the police, district courts, medical facilities, the labour office and social affairs and family office, drafting official requests, and so on. In the field, they focus on identifying clients in need of help and informing them about mandatory vaccination or children’s discharge from hospital, among other things. In Podskála and Vilčurňa, we accompanied social workers on visits. The objects of observation were both clients and social workers. Both sides in Spišská Nová Ves consented to observation of nonverbal communication.
In Žehra, we worked with three social workers from the Municipal Office. Almost 90% of their client base is Roma. Here, too, both sides approved observation. In the village, we mainly observed nonverbal communication in the field.
Direct unstructured participant observation was the principal method of our study. We recorded our activities in a written protocol. We therefore conducted a qualitative study.
Prokša and colleagues (2008) state that observation is the most natural method in which we use the senses to identify certain properties or characteristics. Accuracy and reliability are among the most important attributes of observation (Švec, 1998).
Our observation can be further specified as participant observation, in which we observed the symbolism of nonverbal signs of both social worker and client from every angle. We focused our research on observing social work in the social worker’s office and in the client’s natural environment, that is, in the field.
From the name alone, we can infer that the observer directly participates in the observation process. The observer therefore becomes an active member of that group. Hendl (2005) argues that the main goal of this type of observation is to reveal the internal perspective of participants. The aim is to understand the meaning of what happens in a particular environment and how individual participants in communication interpret it (Bogdan, Steven, 1975).
We therefore conducted a study of the meaning of nonverbal communication in social work. We worked with theoretical knowledge that we validated through observing social workers and their clients.
The results we reached through observation correspond to the description and meaning of body language presented by Hrušková (2013) in her publication Reč tela: význam a využitie v praxi sociálneho pracovníka.
The first observation took place in the client’s natural environment in the small settlement of Žehra. A social worker came to remind a client—mother of a girl’s mandatory vaccination. The participants in the communication were the social worker, the client, and her approximately five-year-old child. The child mirrored the mother’s nonverbal communication. The client adopted a closed body posture. She had a monotonous voice and slumped shoulders. Her feet were not directed toward the social worker but away from the communication. Her arms were crossed over her chest, with the right arm placed over the left. Her head was slightly tilted, creating an indirect gaze directed from below upward. In contrast, the social worker’s body language was very confident, as evidenced by a loud voice, large hand gestures, and feet spaced apart. His lips were parted and eye contact was sustained.
The second observation also took place in the client’s natural environment in Žehra. A social worker came to the client to negotiate late rent payment. He used immediately at the start of the conversation a gesture of crossed arms on the chest, which signifies a closed, even hostile posture. As a paradoxical signal given his hands, he maintained eye contact, indicating acceptance and interest. The social worker’s feet were apart. The client had raised eyebrows, raised shoulders, and exposed palms, suggesting he did not understand the social worker’s verbal statement. His head was slightly tilted, a sign of submission. We also observed him resting an elbow in a loosely hanging hand with the other hand. From this, we can assume he created a barrier and an defensive posture.
The third observation occurred at the same location and in the same place. The social worker came to tell a client that she could now collect her child from the hospital. The social worker’s body language was open. We inferred this from his open palms shown during conversation, raised corners of his mouth, and his pleasant, calm verbal expression. The client responded positively to this nonverbal pattern. We believe this related also to the information about her child. We could see dilated pupils (a sign of excitement) and a firmer handshake offered to the social worker. From the context we infer this was a gesture expressing gratitude for sharing good news. In the literature, this gesture is described as one in which a person who shakes hands more firmly wants to bring the other person closer to themselves. Another sign of this excitement was thanks and a quick move into the house with a brief excuse: “I have to catch the bus.”
The fourth observation was conducted in an office at the Town Hall in Spišská Nová Ves. The client came to the social worker to apologize for a future absence from a hearing. Based on the quiet and timid knock on the door, we initially inferred that the client would be similarly quiet and timid. He calmly opened the door and greeted in a soft voice. Our inference was confirmed, and the client’s nonverbal communication indicated his insecurity. Upon entering the room, he was greeted warmly and clearly by every social worker in the office. He received not only greetings but eye contact and raised corners of the mouth in return. The client’s response to this verbal and nonverbal behavior was positive, resulting in a more open and self-confident body language. The specific social worker the client was attending with showed signs of openness and acceptance. His hands were resting openly on the table, he maintained eye contact, and his voice was calm and clear. He slowed his speech when delivering important information. At one moment, we noticed a “steeple” of fingers, which may indicate a confident personality.
The fifth observation was again at the Town Hall in Spišská Nová Ves. The client came to the social worker to review documents he did not understand. The social worker’s nonverbal communication was confident. His voice was energetic, but he slowed his speech for key points. His gestures were large and clear. His body posture was upright. The client’s body language indicated insecurity and doubt. He had slumped shoulders and a hunched body. When the social worker slowed his speech, the client’s nonverbal behavior signaled awareness of the importance of the information conveyed. He focused his eyes on the social worker and leaned toward him.
The sixth observation again took place in the client’s natural environment, in the village of Žehra. The participants were not only the client and female social worker, but also other residents who were outside at that moment. The client, social worker, and other participants were Roma. The social worker was carrying out outreach in order to identify clients needing help. Her nonverbal communication was pleasant and open. It suggested self-respect, interest, and willingness to help. Her verbal expression was clear, distinct, and logical. Her walk was energetic and natural, and her posture was upright. From her unforced smile, we could assume she was a well-composed social worker likely interested in the client. In addition to upturned mouth corners, she showed an open palm, indicating openness. Regarding space, she maintained eye contact and direct gaze. The social worker kept an interpersonal distance that we believe is optimal for this profession. Hall (1990) defined this as 120 to 366 cm. From these signs, we deduced that effective communication was likely. At one moment, the client shortened the social distance to a personal distance, which likely disturbed the social worker’s sense of intimacy. This harmed the counseling process. The social worker became alert and stepped one step back. We observed pupil dilation and a defensive, non-accepting stance. Her hands were crossed over her chest. The client’s and other residents’ nonverbal communication was confident. They used large and clear gestures, with legs spread apart, indicating the same confidence and assertiveness. At times, their hands were also crossed over the chest. Residents mirrored each other’s body language, showing affinity and agreement. We believe this was due to shared belonging and a common community.
The seventh observation was in the natural environment of the client in Žehra. The social worker came to a father to warn him about his child’s neglected school attendance. The social worker’s nonverbal communication was based on openness. Her feet were directed toward the client (a sign of interest), she had upright posture, and her voice was calm and clear. The client, who claimed he would try to improve, scratched his nose and avoided eye contact when saying this. This is a sign that the client was lying. His hands were in his pockets throughout the conversation, showing disinterest and arrogance. His widely spaced legs indicated dominance and obstinacy.
The eighth observation took place in the office of a social worker in Žehra. The client came because he did not understand a decision he had received. He knocked loudly and energetically. We assumed he would be a confident client. His walk was also energetic. From a distance he stated why he had come to the social worker. He used large gestures. His head was slightly tilted, suggesting subordination. After entering the room, the social worker straightened up, which means he adopted an open and confident posture. His speech was distinct. The social worker wore corrective glasses; after reviewing the decision he removed them and supported the bridge of his glasses on his cheek. This indicated he was either thinking about the meaning of the document before him or how to communicate it appropriately to the client. He slowed his verbal delivery while explaining the decision. The client became alert and fixed his eyes on the social worker’s lips while clarifying details, trying to capture as much information as possible.
The ninth observation was in the client’s natural environment in Žehra. The social worker came for outreach. His nonverbal communication was confident and open. He had upright posture, clear and distinct verbal delivery, and a calm walk. As soon as one of the residents saw the social worker, a potential client ran up asking for help with processing social benefits. The body language was open. While explaining his problem he used large hand gestures and maintained direct, uninterrupted eye contact. He later clasped his hands in front of his body, revealing anxiety. The client’s feet pointed away from the communication, indicating he wanted to leave the conversation as quickly as possible. This signal is paradoxical in this context, as he had come to the social worker and thus signaled a need for help.
The tenth observation was in the office of a social worker in Žehra. The client came to ask for help with a housing allowance application. Here we first encountered a client who sat down on a chair. We could infer that he would be a confident client, but he sat uncertainly on the edge. His limbs were crossed, symbolizing fear. His hands were clasped and resting on his legs, his head was lowered and his torso leaned forward, indicating nervousness. The social worker was open and confident. She had elbows on the table and fingers interlaced, which can symbolize disappointment or negativity. She maintained direct eye contact and an upright posture. Her voice was calm and clear. During important statements, she slowed her speech.
The eleventh observation was carried out in the client’s natural environment in the Podskála district of Spišská Nová Ves. A social worker came to the client to warn her about her child’s neglected compulsory school attendance, a condition considered a moral education offense. The social worker had open nonverbal communication. He showed open hands, his voice was calm. His posture was upright and stable; while standing he did not sway from one side to the other. His feet were slightly apart and his gaze was direct. In some moments, he even encroached on the client’s personal space, to which she did not react and maintained her position. We can therefore say she did not respond to the social worker’s nonverbal communication. The client’s body language during discussion of her child’s attendance was spare and insecure. She had a quiet, trembling voice, dropped shoulders, and feet directed toward each other. Thus, we can assume her communication on this topic was not pleasant for her. At the moment when it began to be discussed that the client had no job and the social worker offered to help her find one, her nonverbal communication changed. She also took a stable position, her posture became upright, and her hands were placed loosely at her sides. The corners of her mouth slowly rose, signaling a smile and satisfaction. Her gaze shifted from indirect to direct.
The twelfth observation took place in the client’s natural environment in Žehra. The social worker came to remind a client that he had to pay overdue rent. The social worker’s nonverbal communication was initially open. He had a calm walk, pleasant voice, upright posture, and direct eye contact. The social worker did not find the client at home. Neighbors told him the client was not there. When one of them said the client was absent, he rubbed his eye, which may be a sign of deception. His hands were in his pockets and his legs were apart, indicating dominance, self-assurance, and disinterest. Other residents showed similar nonverbal patterns: apart legs, hands in pockets, and slumped shoulders. After this finding, the social worker’s body language became uncertain. He adopted a closed posture, clasped his hands under his waist, and moved his legs closer together. He later began to adjust his clothing, another sign of uncertainty. When leaving, he had hesitant walking.
The thirteenth observation was conducted in the office of a field social worker at the Municipal Office in Žehra. A client came with an enforcement order and asked the social worker to help arrange an installment plan. The social worker’s nonverbal communication was open. His body was upright and he maintained eye contact. He supported his head with a hand, indicating boredom and disinterest. His verbal expression was clear but slow. The client had crossed legs, representing uncertainty. His hands were crossed on his chest, also representing uncertainty or a defensive barrier. His head was slightly tilted and his gaze directed upward from below, indicating subordination or non-acceptance.
Analysis of Observations
For the purposes of this article, we selected four of the above-described observations for more detailed analysis and evaluate in this chapter the influence of nonverbal communication on the effectiveness of social work.
We were in a settlement where the social worker communicated with a client outdoors in front of his home. The participants included their children, who observed the social worker attentively as well as their parents’ reactions. The children watched the social worker’s mouth, looking up and down at him. After receiving information, they focused their gaze on their parents, waiting to see how they would respond. Oravcová (2004) states that gestures are often innate but more often learned. On this occasion we observed this as well, and this claim could be confirmed at the same time. An approximately five-year-old girl standing beside her mother during field counseling perfectly copied her mother’s nonverbal communication. Her hands were crossed on her chest in the same way as her mother’s, with the right hand over the left. Her feet pointed away from the communication, not toward the social worker but outward. The mother’s feet had exactly the same placement as the child’s.
With regard to the meaning of body language, it tells us about a closed, insecure, and defensive stance. Hrušková (2013) also presents such a description of body-language meaning, which corresponds with our finding. The tone of voice in this communication was consistent with the other gestures: the client had a monotonous voice indicating lack of interest, apathy, and low credibility. Her dropped shoulders and slightly inclined head reflected subordination and a sense of inferiority. In this case, nonverbal communication was consistent with verbal language, because her verbal expression was also timid, unclear, and unsure.
On the other hand, the social worker’s body language was very confident. Here the impact of the social worker’s nonverbal communication on the client becomes evident. We believe that precisely an excessive level of confidence on the part of the social worker was the reason for disinterest, doubt, and even fear of rejection. The social worker had a loud verbal expression, likely to dominate the communication and signal superiority. He also showed this through wider-legged stance and large, clear gestures.
We found that this particular social worker does not have sufficient education for the profession. He studied a technical field and works in this area because no other job options were available.
Here we confirmed the claim by Strieženec (2001) that the personality of a social worker derives from solid education, professional prerequisites and capabilities, communication ability with clients, institutions, and community organizations, and also from social awareness and an integrated set of character traits such as honesty, fairness, truthfulness, diligence, and the ability to inspire trust.
Thiel (1997) says that nonverbal expressions can reveal a lot because it is easier to control and regulate spoken language than the spontaneous reactions of our body, and therefore people are sometimes unaware of what they reveal through nonverbal expressions. We fully agree with this view, as our study confirmed several times that one person’s verbal statement did not match their own nonverbal behavior.
Another observation was conducted in an office at the Town Hall, where four social workers shared one room. These workers were not physically separated in any special way. The only dividing element was potted plants on a side table. The atmosphere was pleasant. When a client came to one of them with a specific problem, all of them, whether intentionally or not, listened.
A client arrived and knocked on the door timidly and quietly, from which we inferred fear, insecurity, and shame at the doorway. This confirms Gabura’s (2004) claim regarding territoriality, namely that a person entering unfamiliar territory often feels hesitation and uncertainty.
The client was dressed sportswear, had neatly styled hair, was clean-shaven, and wore a men’s sports fragrance. We assumed he would be a clean, responsible, and intelligent sports-type client who did not consider his problems trivial and was interested in resolving them.
When he entered, each social worker looked at him and greeted him. This was the first positive step to making him feel comfortable even with the number of staff present. This gesture helped him shed some uncertainty and fear. Social workers should adopt this behavior. When a client enters a room where a social worker is present and greets him, the social worker should not merely return the greeting but should also include eye contact in the greeting, which is one of the most important keys in social work for building a trustworthy relationship in the counseling process.
The client responded positively to this signal, and his nonverbal communication lost signs of uncertainty. His walk became energetic, spontaneous, and upright, indicating self-respect and openness. He could clearly express his request in a voice that was clear and appropriately loud. The social worker maintained eye contact throughout, showing interest in the client and his problem. The social worker’s hands lay openly on the table. At one point, we could see a finger steeple, which Hrušková (2013) defines as a sign of self-confidence, superiority, and arrogance. His voice was calm and clear, indicating he was sovereign and relaxed.
In this situation, there were moments when the social worker slowed and softened his speech. By doing so, he signaled that this was information important to the client. The client responded by narrowing his eyes and focusing his gaze on the social worker’s lips to better understand what was being said. This was the moment when we could say an effective communication between client and social worker could occur. That particular social worker studied social work for five years and earned the title Mgr.
Another observation took place again in the field, in a Roma settlement. It is important to note that the field social worker is also Roma. She was not dressed unusually; her clothing was appropriate. Her expression was clear, distinct, and logical. Her communication included professional terminology, from which we could deduce she was a higher-education individual. Her walk was natural and uninhibited, and her posture was upright. From a distance she greeted her clients with a smile and raised her hand in greeting. This displayed an open palm, a signal of openness and interest. The settlement was as clean as possible and without smell. The residents clearly seemed pleased to see the social worker and received her with smiles. It was obvious that this social worker had visited there multiple times and was well known in the community. We must note a major advantage: she speaks Roma language. She therefore communicated with them in their mother tongue, signaling her belonging to this minority, which impressed the local residents. Her nonverbal communication suggested an open and relaxed posture. She maintained direct gaze, eye contact, and social distance, which Hall (1990) defined as 120–366 cm. The clients continuously moved closer to her and shortened the distance, meaning they were aligned with her and trying to capture as much transmitted information as possible. On the other hand, this can also indicate aggression. In such cases, we rely on context. Since they welcomed her warmly and she did not harm them in any way, it could not be aggression. Even so, she still reacted by stepping one step back. She therefore signaled that this distance reduction was not unpleasant and adopted a defensive posture. She stepped back, crossed her hands on her chest, and her pupils dilated. Here, an initially well-started counseling process could have been disrupted. We can therefore agree with Balogová (2005), who argues that it is important in communication not to disrupt the other person’s intimacy, because this can reduce communication effectiveness.
The nonverbal communication of clients was similar and mirrored each other’s movements. This may reflect a shared opinion or sense of belonging, since they were members of one community. Many had elevated voices, large and clear gestures, spread legs, and a downward gaze. This indicates their confidence, energy, dominance, assertiveness, and even superiority.
We believe that precisely the large number of communication participants was a reason for their confident, sovereign manner. It is scientifically established that even a group of two people feels more confident than when one person in that group is absent.
The following observation was again in the client’s natural environment. The social worker has worked in social work for many years, which means he has relatively extensive experience. The entire communication took place standing outside the client’s home. When the social worker arrived, his nonverbal communication was very pleasant from the beginning. He had a calm, melodic, and clear voice, indicating composure and confidence. Upright posture, minimal head movement, and stable stance told us about self-confidence and his relatively higher position. We believe it is important that the client feels that the social worker is, in this relationship, some kind of authority. Of course, the social worker should not exaggerate authority, and demonstrations of authority should remain proportionate. In terms of appearance, the social worker had a direct gaze signaling high intensity of engagement with the other participant. His legs were slightly apart, meaning he felt dominant and self-assured. We can also interpret this as him using all his competencies to help the client.
The client’s body language was initially insecure, shown by her quiet, trembling voice. She had a hunched posture and slumped shoulders, meaning she was in a lower state during communication. Her feet pointed inward, indicating doubt and loneliness. At the moment when the social worker offered to help her find work, her nonverbal communication shifted by 180 degrees. She took an upright posture, her mouth corners lifted, her pupils dilated. Her hands were no longer crossed on her chest but rested freely at her sides. Her stance changed from closed to open. We can say the client did not respond to the social worker’s nonverbal communication directly but reacted to his verbal statement.
What was truly unusual for the social worker was the reduction of social distance. In most cases we encountered the opposite, where the social worker maintained distance and, if his intimacy was suddenly disrupted, stepped back. The client’s response was also surprising. She maintained her own distance, and the disruption of personal space did not bother her at all. We think this reflected affinity and agreement in views. The social worker’s nonverbal communication corresponded with his verbal expression. He tried to help the client find employment. Here there is a likelihood of an effective counseling process.
We believe the nonverbal communication of the social workers and clients involved in this research was substantially influenced by our presence. Some social workers tried to control their body language, which was not successful. They tried to avoid cues such as crossing their arms on their chests or signaling superiority to clients in our presence, and thus somatic signs became more pronounced: blushing, visible neck veins, and even increased breathing rate. The strongest signal that we had become “disruptors” was their occasional side glances toward us. This indicates self-control and a desire to make an impression.
On the other hand, some social workers did not perceive our presence and, in our judgment, behaved naturally. They were mostly professionals who have worked in this field for a longer time and are therefore more resilient to such disturbances.
As for the clients, whom we also informed about our research and let know what we would be observing, we think that even so we were, for most of them, a disturbing element in communication, standing aside without any verbal expression except a polite greeting, observing and making notes. Their nonverbal communication was not only directed at the social worker but also at us. Frowns, focused glances directed toward us, hands under the waistline, arms crossed on the chest, touching nose and lips told us they felt uncertainty, were tense, and were thinking about what exactly we were writing down. Their body language continued to express disagreement, anger, and internal mobilization, even though they had agreed to our observation.
In our study we also focused on the most common forms of nonverbal communication on the side of the social worker and on the side of the client.
Among the most frequently used nonverbal expressions by social workers (Figure 1), large and clear gestures, upright posture, calm and clear verbal expression, and slowing speech when conveying important information were dominant. This is a sign of authority, confidence, and the ability to control a situation. We believe the social worker is aware of his higher position in communication. Some of these expressions also indicate openness, which is a strong positive symbol of their nonverbal behavior and provides potential for effective social counseling. A client can respond to this nonverbal style in two ways. Either they submit, or they try to outdo the social worker. Which direction is likely depends also to some extent on client gender. A male client may display greater self-confidence and assurance. We do not address this in detail here. A social worker should therefore be careful not to make the client feel completely lowest in the hierarchy.
The most frequent symbols of clients’ body language (Graph 2) were, for example, crossed arms on the chest, dropped shoulders, slightly tilted head, and indirect or avoidant gaze. These people behaved insecurely, expressing doubt and isolation. Their nonverbal communication was closed. We believe this was a response to the social workers’ nonverbal behavior. On the other hand, it may also be because these clients were the ones who most needed help from the social worker.
The ultimate goal of this paper was ultimately to indicate the inseparability and connectedness of nonverbal communication and social work. In the survey we also tried to determine whether a good relationship between social worker and client can be built through body language and whether this contributes to the effectiveness of the counseling process.
By collecting the necessary data, we were able to achieve this goal and can say that nonverbal communication is indeed an indispensable part of this helping profession. We believe that if a social worker can at least partly restrain their negative nonverbal expressions and adopt positive elements of body language, they can more easily gain the client’s trust. The client then begins to feel acceptance, empathy, interest, and willingness to help. The social worker’s path opens to them, which makes it easier for the client to talk about their problem. A social worker should therefore be able to read these signals in the client as well. This will help them choose the right approach and manner in working with the client. They should notice when a client shows signs of closedness, insecurity, and doubt. On that basis, they can adapt their own nonverbal communication and remove signs indicating negative feelings. This will speed up the counseling process and increase the likelihood of a positive counseling outcome.
We believe, however, that the most effective and objective observation can occur only if participants in communication do not know an observer is present. We think that is when their nonverbal communication is most natural and relaxed.
Conclusion
The reviewed literature allowed us to define specific concepts, precisely identify positive and negative signs of nonverbal communication, and recognize errors that frequently arise from insufficient awareness of social workers’ own body language and that of their clients. In the survey, we focused on collecting information that should help social workers create a more effective relationship with clients.
We found that the positive signs of nonverbal communication in social workers influence the client very positively.
If the social worker presents an open, trustworthy, and non-judgmental nonverbal stance (maintaining eye contact, not looking at the client from below, looking at the client in a direct plane rather than from above, etc.), that is, with open palms, feet directed toward the client, and maintaining optimal social distance between the social worker and the client, the client is also more open.
In practice this means the social worker is not turned sideways from the client; rather, their entire body is directed toward the client. The client then appears more relaxed, their speech clearer and less rigid, expression more confident, and, not least, their demands to the social worker become clearer and more precisely stated, which helps faster resolution, that is, elimination of the problem.
Conversely, with negative nonverbal cues in the social worker—such as a condescending tone or monotone voice, arms crossed on the chest or hands behind the back, failure to maintain eye contact—this can unconsciously affect the client as signals of disinterest or negative judgment. As a consequence, the client’s body language shows tension. The client has dropped shoulders, a hunched posture, feet pointing inward, a trembling voice (a sign of insecurity), unsteady and hesitant walking, throat clearing while formulating requests, and a lowered head. These signals and their effects make it harder to establish a positive atmosphere for the client.
A client should feel accepted and safe during the meeting with a social worker, with interest and willingness to help. In cases where the social worker’s nonverbal communication is negative, it is unlikely that effective social work will follow—that is, resolution of the problem with which the client came to the social worker in good faith that together they would find a suitable solution.
Given the above results, we decided to publish this survey in the hope that it may be useful and that we can contribute to improving social workers’ awareness of nonverbal communication.
Author: Bc. Lenka Horváthová graduate of the Social Work study field Research, Educational and Counseling Center Hviezdoslavova 15, 052 01 Spišská Nová Ves University of Constantine the Philosopher in Nitra Monograph
[1] BALOGOVÁ, B. 2005. Seniori. Prešov : Akcent Print, 1. vyd. 158 s. ISBN 80-969274-1-8. [2] BOGDAN, R. - TAYLOR, Steven J.: Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods. A phenomenological Approach to the Social Science, New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1975 [3] GABURA, J. - GABURA, P.: Sociálna komunikácia. Bratislava : Občianske združenie Sociálna práca, 2004, 128 s. ISBN 80-968927-7-0. [4] HALL, E.: The silent language. Doubleday. 1990. 209 s. ISBN 0385055498 [5] HENDL, J. Kvalitativní výzkum: základní metody a aplikace. Vyd.1. Praha: Portál, 2005 [6] HRUŠKOVÁ, Lenka Jalilah, Reč tela: Význam a využitie v praxi sociálneho pracovníka. Spišská Nová Ves 2013 ISBN: 978-80-971388-0-6 [7] ORAVCOVÁ, J.: Sociálna psychológia. Banská Bystrica: UMB – Fakulta humanitných vied, 2004. 314 s. ISBN 80-8055-980-5 [8] PRIEZVISKO, Meno. 2008. Názov príspevku. In PRIEZVISKO EDITORA, Meno editora. Názov zborníka. Miesto vydania : Vydavateľstvo, 2008. ISBN 1256987, s. 52-64. [9] PROKŠA, M. - HELD, Ľ. a kol.: Metodológia pedagogického výskumu a jeho aplikácia v didaktikách prírodných vied. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, 2008. ISBN 978-80-223-2562-2 [10] ŠVEC, Š. a kol.: Metodológia vied o výchove . Bratislava: Iris, 1998, 303 s. ISBN 80-88778-73-5 [11] THIEL, E.: Mluvíme tělem. Řeč tela prozradí víc než tisíc slov. Praha, Knižný klub 1997