International Social Work 50(2): 185–195 Sage Publications: Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore DOI: 10.1177/0020872807073966
i s w *
Responding to the war with Iraq among social work faculty in the USA, UK and Australia
*
Cindy Davis, Sherry Cummings, Samuel MacMaster and Albert Thompkins
The governing body of international social work, the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW), provides ethical standards by which social workers around the globe are to abide. In terms of political activism, IFSW lays out guidelines that state that member associations are responsible for promoting debate, education and research regarding ethical questions (Healy, 2001). Furthermore, in terms of social work standards for agencies and organizations, it states that if necessary remedies are not achieved after channels have been exhausted, appropriate appeals to higher authorities or the wider community interest should be initiated (Healy, 2001). Therefore, social workers are encouraged to get involved in political activism. Issues that were once viewed as local or national are now being recognized as global issues impacting all levels of society (Lyons, 2006). However, many writers have documented how social workers have abandoned their mission of social and political action for a more clinical or therapeutic approach with clients (Gil, 1990; Hawkins et al., 2001; Schriver, 1987; Specht and Courtney, 1994), and how radical social work has changed paradigms in the current social work framework (Fook, 1993; Healy and Leonard, 2000; Leonard, 1995, 1996). Another issue of consideration is that many
Key words * activism * political
*
social work faculty * teaching * war
186
International Social Work volume 50(2)
social workers who are employed by the government or seeking federal funds are hampered by real and perceived limits imposed by the federal government on their ability to engage in political activism, particularly when linked to the employment setting (Thompson, 1994). This may have an impact on social work educators who are employed by state-funded universities, seeking federallyfunded grants or collaborating with federally-funded agencies. Social work and activism Although the research in this area is scant, a few studies have addressed the degree to which social workers are involved in political action. A study by Wolk (1981) found that the political involvement of US social workers was equal to that of other professional groups. He also found that political involvement was highest for older social workers, those with higher incomes, those in the profession longest and those in macro-level positions (Wolk, 1981). Similarly, Ezell (1993) surveyed social workers in Washington and found that more than half reported being politically active and almost a third reported being very politically active, with writing letters to public officials being the most frequent activity. Among the social workers, those with the highest degrees, membership of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) in the USA, macro jobs and African-Americans tended to be the most politically active. It is important to note that these findings may be misleading due to the argument that non-responding may indicate a person’s inactivity or apathy; therefore, it is possible that as high as 50 percent of the original sample may fall into a category of political inactivity (Ezell, 1993). A study of political participation among NASW chapters revealed that 38 percent were very politically active, 27 percent active and 35 percent were not active (Salcido and Seck, 1992). The most common types of political activities were traditional actions, such as writing and calling legislators and face-to-face lobbying, whereas there was much less participation in activities, such as voter registration, protest rallies or organizing coalitions of interest groups. Findings further revealed that political activities were more likely to focus on promoting the profession rather than promoting social service legislation (Salcido and Seck, 1992). Domanski (1998) found similar results among 531 social work leaders in healthcare settings in the USA, with over 90 percent of respondents engaging in traditional political activities (e.g. writing and calling legislators,
Davis et al.: War with Iraq
187
advocacy and voting), but only a small minority of respondents engaging in more activist behaviors (e.g. public hearings and demonstrations). Hawkins et al. (2001) conducted a qualitative study to examine the use of social justice terminology by Australian social workers and found that social justice terms were rarely used by social workers, even when discussing practice scenarios which might clearly suggest issues of social justice. A few studies have also addressed innovations in political activism within the social work academic setting. For example, in Israel a study was conducted to determine the level of political activism by social workers compared with other professionals (Cohen, 1987). The study showed that there was no significant difference in the level of participation and that the perception of involvement of Israeli social workers in political activism was unfounded. However, when the study compared Israeli social workers with the American social workers studied by Wolk (1981), there were found to be some discrepancies. Cohen observed that social workers in Israel were far less active than the social workers in the USA, but attributes this to gender differences, with female social workers making up 91 percent of the Israeli sample and only 73 percent of the US sample (Cohen, 1987). Cohen stated that Israel’s cultural emphasis on security and international issues tends to put less prominence on the role of women in the political arena. Several studies have presented case studies describing how they have developed programs or initiatives to increase joint student and faculty involvement in political advocacy and social change (Moore and Johnston, 2002; Sherraden et al., 2002; Torczyner, 2000). Only two studies have specifically addressed political activism among social work educators. Mary et al. (1993) surveyed 23 social work faculty and 104 field instructors and found that social workers had more political involvement when compared with general population studies. Findings also revealed that older social workers, higher-paid social workers and macro-level social workers were more likely to be involved in political action. A more recent study by Mary (2001) surveyed 63 social work educators and field instructors and found a high level of political activism, such as letter writing to a public official (87%), initiating a political discussion (87%), attending a political meeting/rally (76%), attending a march/boycott (76%), wearing a political button or putting a bumper sticker on a car (67%), and making a monetary contribution to a party or candidate (63%). Findings also revealed that significantly more faculty had participated in a boycott, sit-in, march or
188
International Social Work volume 50(2)
demonstration; whereas significantly more field instructors reported having initiated a political discussion. The few available studies in this area suggest that social workers are more politically involved than the general population, and that social work educators are more likely to be involved in high-level activist behavior (e.g. boycotts, marches/demonstrations); however, none of the studies explored how social work educators integrated their political activism into the classroom setting or on their own campus. Thus, the purpose of this study was to explore how social work educators in three different countries (USA, UK and Australia) responded to the war with Iraq from an educational as well as a personal perspective. These three countries were selected because they were a primary part of the allied force that declared war on Iraq. Methods Participants and procedures A representative sampling frame was developed by the research team to ensure geographic distribution. Private schools were eliminated, and only faculty members from public colleges and universities were included in the sample, as it was assumed that these faculty as state employees might feel more pressure to conform with political decisions. All public universities with accredited social work programs in Australia and the UK were included in the sample. However, in the USA, flagship universities – or an equivalent university if the state’s flagship university did not have an accredited undergraduate social work program – were selected from 51 programs in 47 of the 50 states to participate in the study. Two states were excluded from the study because the researchers were unable to get contact lists of social work faculty. Contact information on eligible faculty members was obtained from either the universities’ website or by contacting the university directly. The sample frame included 542 undergraduate social work faculty in the USA (N ¼ 300), UK (N ¼ 124) and Australia (N ¼ 118). The response rate was 22 percent in the USA, 25 percent in Australia and 15 percent in the UK, and the overall response rate was 21 percent. This yielded a final sample of 114 (N ¼ 65 in the USA, N ¼ 19 in the UK and N ¼ 30 in Australia). Although efforts were made to obtain a representative sample of undergraduate social work faculty from public accredited universities in each country, these partici-
Davis et al.: War with Iraq
189
pants are not representative of all undergraduate social work faculty, due to the low response rates. Participants completed a brief quantitative and qualitative mixed survey about the war with Iraq, including the following topics: educational responses, personal responses, personal views, academic freedom and demographic data. The questionnaire was pasted to the end of an introductory email so that participants could simply click on reply, complete the survey and click on send. The questionnaire was also attached to the email in both Word and WordPerfect. Participants were provided with the choice of replying to the survey directly via email, attaching the completed survey in Word or WordPerfect to the email, faxing the completed survey or mailing the completed survey. Participants were re-sent the questionnaire via email for a second time approximately 10 days after the original contact. Data collection was conducted during the spring semester of 2003 during the early phase of the war with Iraq. The majority of participants were either tenured (54%) or tenured track (23%) faculty with a rank of full professor (12%), associate professor/senior lecturer (30%), or assistant professor/lecturer (39%). Participants included 13 percent minority faculty and over 50 percent female faculty. Results Findings revealed that the majority of respondents (70% in USA, 69% in Australia and 50% in the UK) felt that social work faculty had a responsibility to educate students about the war with Iraq. However, more respondents in Australia (60%) than the USA (36%) or the UK (37%) felt that social work faculty had a responsibility to advocate for or against the war with Iraq. As shown in Table 1, findings revealed that most of the faculty surveyed (88% in the USA, 91% in the UK and 85% in Australia) incorporated the war with Iraq into their class activities in the following ways. They discussed issues related to the war during class time (60%), facilitated in class discussions related to the war (46%), integrated information related to the war into class content (46%), allowed class projects or papers related to the war (13%) and other strategies (e.g. online discussions, departmental conferences and cancelled classes, 9%). Respondents’ reasons for incorporating this content into their classes included that they usually tried to incorporate significant world events into their classes (58%), felt their students were interested in exploring these issues
190
International Social Work volume 50(2)
Table 1 Activities related to the war with Iraq undertaken by undergraduate social work faculty in the UK, Australia and the USA both on and off campus (N Âź 114) War-related activities Signed petition off-campus Allowed time in class for students to discuss Discussed with students outside class March/demonstration off-campus Integrated information into class content Facilitated class discussions Symbolic gesture on-campus (e.g. sign in office, flag in office, wearing accessories with war statement) Symbolic gestures off-campus (e.g. yard signs, bumper stickers, flags) March/demonstration on-campus Educational seminars off-campus Teach-in or other educational seminars on campus Class projects/papers Other in-class activities (e.g. online discussions, departmental conferences, and cancelled classes) Other on-campus activities (e.g. petition, letter to editior) Other off-campus activities (e.g. letter to editor, letter to political leaders, online discussions) Spoke to the media off-campus
Percent 61 60 58 51 46 46 44 37 33 27 15 13 9 9 9 5
(49%), felt the topic was related to course content (49%) and felt that students needed to be educated on issues related to the war (36%). Only 18 percent of respondents (12% in the USA, 32% in the UK and 20% in Australia) did not incorporate the war with Iraq into their classes, and most of these participants reported that they felt the topic was not related to their course content. A few isolated respondents stated that they felt this information was too sensitive due to possible loved ones serving in the military or that it was inappropriate for social work faculty to engage in such activities during class time. A significant minority of faculty in the USA (14%) felt restricted by their institution from expressing their views of the war with Iraq during class time, yet very few faculty felt restricted in Australia (3%) or the UK (0%). Most of the faculty surveyed (80% in USA, 79% in the UK and 90% in Australia) participated in activities related to the war with Iraq outside class on their own campus, such as discussions with
Davis et al.: War with Iraq
191
students (58%), symbolic gestures (e.g. sign in office, flag in office, accessories with war statements, 44%), march/demonstration (33%) and teach-in or educational seminar (15%). Most of the faculty survey (75% in USA, 79% in the UK and 94% in Australia) participated in activities related to the war with Iraq off-campus, such as signing petitions (61%), march/demonstration (51%), symbolic gestures (e.g. yard sign, bumper stickers, 37%), educational seminar (27%) and speaking to the media (5%). A significant minority of faculty in the USA (17%) felt restricted by their institution from expressing their views of the war with Iraq on their own campus, yet none of the faculty members surveyed from Australia or the UK felt the same restrictions. None of the Australian faculty members felt any restriction about expressing their views concerning the war with Iraq off-campus, yet 5 percent of respondents in the USA and the UK reported that they felt restricted about expressing their views on the war with Iraq off-campus. The majority of respondents (79% in USA, 68% in the UK and 87% in Australia) opposed the war with Iraq, while 6 percent in the USA and 5 percent in the UK and Australia favored the war, and 14 percent in the USA, 21 percent in the UK and 10 percent in Australia were undecided. Eighty-five percent of the American respondents were opposed to President Bush’s handling of the war with Iraq and 87 percent of Australian respondents were opposed to Prime Minister Howard’s handling; however, only 63 percent of British respondents were opposed to Prime Minister Blair’s handling. Faculty from both the USA and UK believed that less than half of their students opposed the war in Iraq, whereas the Australian faculty believed that over 70 percent of their students opposed the war. The qualitative item regarding respondent’s opinion about social work educators’ role in promoting students’ critical thinking related to major political events of the day revealed mixed feelings about the degree to which faculty should be involved in this role. On one hand, there was consensus that promoting critical thinking is an essential role of social work faculty; however, there was less consensus on using the war with Iraq as a mechanism for promoting critical thinking. Despite geographic diversity, some respondents were concerned that social work faculty were promoting their own personal views of the war as opposed to critical thinking. For example: UK respondent: ‘Issues such as the war with Iraq are matters of personal conscience. While I have personal views concerning such an issue I feel they generally
192
International Social Work volume 50(2)
have no place in the curriculum of a professional social work course. However, in so far as the general question of war may raise questions about personal and professional values I feel there may be merit in promoting discussing among the students . . .’ US respondent: ‘I believe that there is considerable pressure in social work to be anti-war . . . In a very closed minded, vocal, non-critical thinking sort of way by a few key faculty and I do not feel free to openly express my pro war views because of this. Also I feel that due to the closed mindedness of some faculty we are not able to engage in a productive discussion about these issues . . .’ Australian respondent: ‘[It is] important to declare personal and political positioning but to take care that it does not become prescriptive so that students feel that they need to comply with my position if they do not agree with it because they may fear the consequences (e.g. failure). The power dimension is an issue and we need to take care that students learn how to formulate positions through critical thought and not just adopt them because people in authority positions advocate them . . .’
Other respondents felt that challenging students’ values and beliefs by discussing the war with Iraq was a key role of social work faculty. For example: UK respondent: ‘Students need to be able to see the way issues of power and inequality function both on a macro and micro level. In this sense a discussion of the war in Iraq has significant influence over the context in which social work is practiced . . .’ US respondent: ‘It is essential that students understand the impact of political and economic decisions on the lives of people. The cost of war is having a devastating impact on the availability of services and programs for poor, disempowered and disenfranchised people. Isn’t that what social work is suppose to do?’ Australian respondent: ‘I believe that social work must remain a positive force in both commenting on and influencing political institution and decisions. One way to develop this is to engage students in critical thinking about current political issues . . .’
Discussion The overall aim of the current study was to explore how social work educators in three of the countries initiating the war with Iraq responded to the build-up and eventual conflict from both personal and educational perspectives. Prior to discussing the results, it is important to consider several limitations of the study. Although efforts were made to obtain a representative sample of under-
Davis et al.: War with Iraq
193
graduate social work faculty from public accredited universities in each country, these participants are not representative of all undergraduate social work faculty due to the low response rates, particularly in the UK where the response rate was only 15 percent. As with previous studies (Ezell, 1993), it is possible that these findings may be misleading as a non-response may indicate inactivity or apathy; therefore, the results may be presenting a skewed view of how social work faculty as a group responded to this issue. Additionally, with all cross-sectional studies the results are only valid for the point in time in which they were collected. As time and the political landscape changed, faculty members may have been more or less likely to involve themselves in political activities. Despite these limitations, results revealed important information regarding the response of social work faculty to the build-up and eventual war with Iraq and how this event was integrated into their role as educators. Findings from the current study revealed that the majority of undergraduate social work faculty responding to the survey believed that social work educators had a responsibility to educate students about the war with Iraq and incorporated this content into their classes using a variety of innovative educational techniques. Over half of the faculty surveyed allowed time for in-class discussions, facilitated class discussions and integrated content on the war with Iraq into their existing course content. A smaller number of faculty incorporated content about the war with Iraq into their classes via class projects/papers, online discussions, hosting conferences and/or the symbolic statement of canceling class. It is interesting to note, however, that there was some disagreement among the respondents concerning the appropriateness of including content about the war in classroom discussions and fear that faculty doing so may, knowingly or unknowingly, exert undue influence on their students. It is clear that some faculty feel that they, and their colleagues, may not be adequately prepared to address sensitive political issues in their classrooms. Lyons (2006) noted a need for more informed debate among social workers in national and international forums about the international dimensions of social work and the impact of globalization. This type of debate might assist educators in identifying effective approaches and strategies for engaging students in active discussions of the important political and social events of the day. As with previous studies of social work professionals (Ezell, 1993; Mary, 2001; Mary et al., 1993; Wolk, 1981), the current sample
194
International Social Work volume 50(2)
reported high levels of engaging in political activity. Prior studies found that social work professionals were more likely to engage in low-risk political activities, such as letter writing, as opposed to marches, demonstrations or protests (Domanski, 1998; Salcido and Seck, 1992). In contrast, the current study found that around 50 percent of the social work faculty surveyed participated in some type of march/demonstration and/or displayed some type of symbolic gesture (e.g. yard sign or bumper sticker) in support for or against the war with Iraq. The results are also significant from a methodological perspective. This study was able to demonstrate the efficacy of collecting data from an international sample utilizing electronic mail. This mode of data collection is particularly useful in situations similar to this study where a rapid response to a changing environmental and political landscape is necessary and when the sample can be assumed to have equal access to electronic mail. While not the intent of this study to evaluate this method of data collection, it appeared to be both expedient and efficient in this instance. The most significant finding from this study is that some social work educators did, in fact, actively engage in political action. As previously mentioned, many writers during the 1980s and 1990s documented the abandonment of social and political action for a more individualistic clinical approach (Gil, 1990; Hawkins et al., 2001; Schriver, 1987; Specht and Courtney, 1994). This, coupled with a general societal sense of political apathy, in contrast to the political activism at other times of war, most notably the Vietnam war era, led to the implicit, and unsupported, hypothesis of the research team that there would be little reported political activism. The fact that some social work faculty participated in political activism is important in and of itself, and may dispense with the fears that social work is abandoning its traditional and ethical obligation of political activism. References Cohen, Ben-Zion (1987) ‘Political Activism of Social Workers: A Cross-National Replication’, Journal of Social Work and Policy in Israel 1: 51–63. Domanski, M. (1998) ‘Prototypes of Social Work Political Education: An Empirical Model’, Social Work 43(2): 156–67. Ezell, M. (1993) ‘The Political Activity of Social Workers: A Post-Reagan Update’, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 20(4): 81–97. Fook, J. (1993) ‘Towards an Australian Radical Social Work for Today’, Australian Social Work 46(1): 2.
Davis et al.: War with Iraq
195
Gil, D.G. (1990) ‘Implications of Conservative Tendencies for Practice and Education in Social Welfare’, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 17(2): 5–27. Hawkins, L., J. Fook and M. Ryan (2001) ‘Social Workers’ Use of the Language of Social Justice’, British Journal of Social Work 31: 1–13. Healy, K. and P. Leonard (2000) ‘Responding to Uncertainty: Critical Social Work Education in the Postmodern Habitat’, Journal of Progressive Human Services 11(1): 23–48. Healy, L.M. (2001) International Social Work. New York: Oxford University Press. Leonard, P. (1995) ‘Postmodernism, Socialism and Social Welfare’, Journal of Progressive Human Services 6(2): 3–19. Leonard, P. (1996) Three Discourses on Practice: A Postmodern Re-Appraisal’, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 23(2): 7–26. Lyons, K. (2006) ‘Globalization and Social Work: International and Local Implications’, British Journal of Social Work 36(3): 365–80. Mary, N.L. (2001) ‘Political Activism of Social Work Educators’, Journal of Community Practice 9(4): 1–20. Mary, N., C. Ellano and J. Newell (1993) ‘Political Activism in Social Work: A Study of Social Work Educators’, in T. Mizrahi and J. Morrison (eds) Community Organization and Social Administration: Advances, Trends and Emerging Principles. New York: Haworth Press. Moore, L.S. and L.B. Johnston (2002) ‘Involving Students in Political Advocacy and Social Change’, Journal of Community Practice 10(2): 89–101. Salcido, R.M. and E.T. Seck (1992) ‘Political Participation among Social Work Chapters’, Social Work 37(6): 563–4. Schriver, J.M. (1987) ‘Harry Lurie’s Assessment and Prescription: An Early View of Social Workers’ Roles and Responsibilities Regarding Political Action’, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 14(2): 111–27. Sherraden, M.S., B. Slosar and M. Sherraden (2002) ‘Innovation in Social Policy: Collaborative Policy Advocacy’, Social Work 47(3): 209–21. Specht, M. and M. Courtney (1994) Unfaithful Angels: How Social Work Has Abandoned Its Mission. New York: The Free Press. Thompson, J.T. (1994) ‘Social Workers and Politics: Beyond the Hatch Act’, Social Work 39(4): 457–65. Torczyner, J. (2000) ‘Globalization, Inequality and Peace Building: What Social Workers Can Do?’, Social Work and Globalization Special Issue (July): 123–46. Wolk, J.L. (1981) ‘Are Social Workers Politically Active?’, Social Work 26: 283–8.
Cindy Davis is Associate Professor at the University of Tennessee College of Social Work, Nashville Campus, 193E Polk Avenue, Nashville, TN 37210, USA. [email: cdavis3@utk.edu] Sherry Cummings is Associate Professor at the University of Tennessee College of Social Work, at the same address. Samuel MacMaster is Associate Professor at the University of Tennessee College of Social Work, at the same address. Albert Thompkins is a MSW at the University of Tennessee College of Social Work, at the same address.