Graduate Students' Perceptions of Professional Power in Social Work Practice

Abstract

The study of ways that professional power is perceived in social work practice is limited. This exploratory qualitative study analyzes second-year MSW students' perceptions of professional power in social work practice. This inquiry is guided by social constructivism and symbolic interactionism perspectives. The authors used constant comparison methods to analyze documents (student papers on professional power). Two emergent themes, operationalizing power and conceptualizing professional power, are presented. The importance of understanding and taking responsibility for power dynamics endemic to social work relationships is discussed.

Social work educational programs across the country educate students early in their coursework on the mission, values, and ethics of the profession. This early socialization becomes the foundation for all social work practice, the assumption being that students will integrate this foundational knowledge with their professional practice. One element of this transformation from student to professional is a shift in power. How do students learn to conceptualize professional power? How is professional power expressed in practice?

The literature reveals a growing recognition that power is an integral part of the helper-helpee working relationship (Bundy-Fazioli, Briar-Lawson, & Hardiman, 2009; Fargion, 2006; Tew, 2006). Yet “social workers have a discordant relationship with power” (Bar-On, 2002, p. 997). Many social workers struggle with feelings of power and powerlessness, as do the clients they are seeking to assist (Bundy-Fazioli, 2004; Pitcher, 2008). Bar-On (2002) advocated for the social work profession to “master the discourse of power and use it effectively” (p. 998). In order for this to occur, social work educators must engage students in critical thought regarding their perceptions and understanding of professional power in practice.

The purpose of this article is to discuss qualitative findings derived from second-year MSW graduate students' papers on their perceptions of professional power in social work practice. Masters of social work (MSW) graduate students, enrolled in 30-hour-per-week internships, provide a unique lens for exploring perceptions of power. The literature review will guide the reader in conceptualizing power in the context of social work practice.

CONCEPTUALIZING POWER

Power is a concept that is generally understood, yet no agreed-upon definition exists. Despite its elusiveness, it is a concept that continues to receive notable attention from the social sciences. The literature on power theories reveals two organizing assumptions that contribute to the conceptualization of power. The first assumption is that power is a relational concept that occurs between two or more persons (Bundy-Fazioli, 2004). Foucault described power as operating at the “most micro levels of social relations” and believed that the exercise of power was “omnipresent at every level of social body” (O'Farrell, 2007).

The second assumption is that power can only be viewed from multiple perspectives. For example, a number of theorists characterize power as a limited and restricted resource (Dahl, 1986; French & Raven, 1962; Weber, 1986), whereas feminist scholars embrace power (i.e., empowerment and strengths-based philosophies) as infinite and generative (Brinker-Jenkins & Hooyman, 1986; Freire, 2000; Gutiérrez, 1991; Saleebey, 2013).

Conceptualizing Power in Social Work Practice

Several power theories (implicit and explicit) now focus on social work practice. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) is philosophically grounded in the empowerment of others; therefore, it is logical that a focus on the distribution of power between workers and clients would emerge and be interwoven in academic discussions (2008). The following discussion explores current theoretical and conceptual frameworks on power in social work practice.

The two predominant perspectives of power focus on power as either a power-over or power-with. The power-over perspective focuses on the belief that one person in the helping relationship, the professional, has the power to create change in another person. One such theory was developed by French and Raven (1962), who identified forms of power in their research on group dynamics. They coined the term social influence theory claiming that the social change agent (the group facilitator) exerts change based on five distinct forms of power, including the following:

•	Referent power is the skill of the group facilitator to influence change based on his or her likability and connection established within the group.
•	Expert power is the skill of the group facilitator to create change through demonstrated professional competency.
•	Reward power occurs when the group facilitator provides tangible rewards and positive recommendations to promote change.
•	Coercive power is the group facilitator's use of negative consequences to discourage unwanted behaviors.
•	Legitimate power occurs when the group facilitator's assigned authority (such as job title or position) promotes trust and motivation for participant change.

In these examples, power is perceived as unidirectional. For example, reward power is bestowed on a client by a social worker in the form of a recommendation to the court for probation in place of harsher punishment.

Within the worker relationship, the power-with perspective is perceived as a more balanced distribution of power, deriving from feminist theories as well as from strengths-based and empowerment practices (Gutiérrez, Parsons, & Cox, 1998). Brinker-Jenkins and Hooyman (1986) asserted that the collective action of working together is the process by which power is generated. The notion of collective action—acting in unison, together, with another person—is emphasized. As Lowery and Mattiani observed, “… it is an action, and shared power emphasizes mutual and collective responsibility …” (1999, p. 6). The key to change is sharing power with individuals and families in every aspect of the change process (Gutiérrez, 1991).

Building on the concepts of power-over and power-with, Bundy-Fazioli (2004) and her colleagues (Bundy-Fazioli et al., 2009) provided another conceptual model for power based on a linear model in which power in social work practice is viewed either as hierarchical and imbalanced (power-over), negotiated and reciprocal (power-over and power-with), or shared and balanced (power-with). The new addition to the power construct is negotiated and reciprocal. They found in their research with child welfare workers and parents receiving services for abuse and neglect that power-over and power-with can occur simultaneously in the working relationship. Depending on the context, the worker and the client can both have or hold power in the relationship through a give-and-take process of negotiation.

Tew (2006) added to the power construct with his perspective of the concept of power to in social work. Building on Weber's (1986) belief that “without exception every sphere of social action is profoundly influenced by structures of dominancy” (p. 28), Tew raised the concern of structural dominance inherent in western cultural norms. Embedded in western notions of power are hegemonic structures in which access to power is mediated by privilege and dominance. Thus people are positioned differently in their ability to access power. Therefore the concept of power is added to the framework to illustrate the notion that social workers, without critical thought, uphold institutional and legal structures assuming their actions are in the best interest of the collective.

Tew's (2006) framework also built on feminist thought arguing that power together is not linear, one-dimensional, or binary but instead multidimensional and complex in nature. Similar to Bundy-Fazioli (2004), Tew maintained that a professional working relationship can contain hierarchical, reciprocal, and shared forms of power. “People may be involved in more than one mode of power relations at the same time: for example, an interpersonal relationship may offer opportunities for co-operative power while simultaneously retaining aspects of oppressive inequality in how it is structured” (Tew, 2006, p. 40).

Tew's (2006) contribution expanded existing theoretical and conceptual frameworks of power to include not only power dynamics within the working relationship but issues of systemic societal structures within social work practice. He challenged the idea that linear focus adds a multidimensional layer and asserted that people (social workers) can be simultaneously involved in a shared power relationship while also experiencing other forms of power, such as oppression and collusion, as they work within public and private organizations.

Operationalizing power in a manner that helps inform social work practice and encourage client agency is a current focus of several social work scholars (Bundy-Fazioli et al., 2009; Tew, 2006). This research study seeks to understand how students conceptualize contradictory and complex perspectives of power. The guiding research question for this study asks, how do second-year MSW students perceive professional power?

METHODOLOGY

This qualitative study is guided by interpretive definitions of theory, including social constructivism and symbolic interactionism. “Interpretive theory calls for the imaginative understanding of the studied phenomenon. This type of theory assumes emergent, multiple realities; indeterminacy; facts and values as linked; truth as provisional; and social life as processual” (Charmaz, 2010, p. 126). Social constructivism posits that “individuals seek understanding of the world in which they live and work” (Creswell, 2007, p. 20). Multiple realities are considered, and researchers seek to understand “how people construct and then act on their view of what is real” (Charmaz, 2010, p. 127). Symbolic interactionism asserts that one's present reality is determined through his or her interaction and relationships with others (Charon, 1992). It includes “the person's imagined understanding of the other person's role and response during the interaction” (Charmaz, 2010, p. 127). Symbolic interactionism takes into account one's past and future but focuses primarily on what is happening in the present (Charon, 1992). The intent of this research is to understand how participants “make meaning of a situation or phenomenon” in the present (Merriam, 2002, p. 6). The phenomenon under study in this research is professional power in social work practice.

Sample

Students enrolled in a master's-level social work practice class at a predominately White university in the western United States were asked to write a paper on their concept of professional power. Specifically, students were asked to discuss (1) a conceptual framework that describes their perceptions of professional power and (2) how they (the student) intended to practice professional power with clients and colleagues.

The study received approval from the university's Institutional Review Board for human subjects review. Students were recruited from a second-year social work practice class that completed a paper on professional power (N = 19). Students were not offered any incentives to participate in this study. The class was composed of 17 females (≈89%) and two males (≈11%). The race/ethnicity for the overall class composition consisted of 17 White students (≈89%) and two persons of color (≈11%). The age composition from this class ranged from 23 to 49 years of age with a mean age of 32.3 years. Of the 19 students in the class, 12 (≈63%) agreed to participate in the study.

The students who volunteered to participate in this study were actively engaged in internships requiring approximately 30 hours per week of work. The internship identified in student papers included work at a residential adolescent program, in mental health outpatient counseling, and in juvenile probation, as well as general inferences to working with youth, families, and older adults.

Data Collection

Creswell (2007) identified “documents (private and public)” as one of the four basic types of information for qualitative research (p. 129). Marshall and Rossman (1999) stated that “the review of documents is an unobtrusive method, rich in portraying the values and beliefs of participants in the setting” (p.116). The participants' creation of meaning and writing a document enables them to control their use of language in a more precise way “and to be linked to strategies of centralization and codification” (Hodder, 2000, p. 704). Documents collected for this study included student papers on professional power.

In the recruitment of student papers, all students in the class were given an introductory letter explaining the purpose of the research and a letter explaining informed consent. Students interested in submitting their papers were asked to remove any identifying information from the papers and to place them in a sealed manila envelope in the mailbox of the second author of this article.

Data Analysis

The authors used qualitative methods to analyze document data. Analysis incorporated constant comparison, a method employed in grounded theory. This approach complements both the theoretical frameworks of social constructivisim and symbolic interactionism because grounded theory seeks to understand how individuals perceive themselves within a particular context (Charmaz, 2010). This approach uses an inductive and systematic exploration of data to identify themes and categories (Charmaz, 2010). Using this inductive approach, the researchers read each paper independently and engaged in a two-stage process of coding. First, we independently conducted a line-by-line analysis highlighting key phrases and coding each section identified. Upon completion, we met to discuss the individualized codes that were generated and to engage in more focused coding. Focused coding “requires decisions [be made] about which initial codes make the most analytic sense to categorize your data incisively and completely” (Charmaz, 2010, p. 57). Through an iterative discourse and dialogue, the development of mutually exclusive categories was established (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Lincoln and Guba (1985) asserted that this iterative process of constant comparison “stimulates thought that leads to both descriptive and explanatory categories” (p. 341). We then collapsed the established categories into two primary themes.

Limitations

This study has a number of limitations. First, the findings from this qualitative research are not generalizable to the population as a whole, yet it is our hope that there is potential for “transferability and fittingness,” with populations considered “sufficiently congruent” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 124).

Second, students who chose to participate in this research were exposed to discussions of power, specifically, the instructor's conceptual framework on power. Prior to the assignment due date, the instructor facilitated a discussion on professional power, encouraging students to critically evaluate how they conceptualized power in practice. Therefore, this student group was perhaps more informed on the topic of power than other students who had not taken a class from this instructor or who had not engaged in discussions of power.

The third limitation of this study is that the research occurred within an institution attended by predominately White, non-Hispanic students. In addition, the student population within this social work program is female dominated. Research findings might have been different if the student participant pool had been more diverse.

The final limitation of this study is that the research was based on a class assignment and did not include the larger student body. If more of the student body had been offered the opportunity to participate in this study, the findings might have been quite different. In addition, the findings might have differed had this study included interviews, focus groups, or other data collection methods.

FINDINGS

The student papers provided rich data for understanding the students' perceptions of professional power in social work. Two emergent themes—operationalizing power and conceptualizing professional power—will be discussed, along with subthemes for each category.

Operationalizing Power

Students were asked to discuss in writing their perceptions of professional power. Within this framework, students focused on what the concept of power means to them. The emergent three subthemes were context matters, productive action, and negative implications.

Context matters

Students discussed how power shifts and changes depending on the context in which relationships between social workers and clients occur. System issues appeared to be viewed as stark realties in which social workers must navigate and consider how professional power is exercised. Students identified U.S. governmental structures (local, county, state, and federal) that may affect one's use of professional power. As one student shared:

In the United States power is often maintained by the people who control the money, resources and connections by distinguishing themselves as the deserving leaders of the country. For many years, these leaders have been, of course, white, upper class, protestant, heterosexual males without disabilities. While efforts have been made in recent decades to share power with the “rest” of the nation, it is important to recognize that many of the clients we work with are living in powerless conditions. They may be affected by the fact that they are or feel they are unable to take control of their own lives due to their standing in this country.

“Context” matters, as one student aptly stated, “Despite the fact that both parties have sources of power, the agency or organization often always determines the context and manner in which services or resources will be provided to the client.” A third student added, “I want to maintain a critical eye toward the system in which my clients and I are functioning. It is essential to recognize systemic forces that disadvantage particular populations and work towards restructuring such forces.”

In a second identified theme, students used power as an action word. Students discussed actions of power in social work practice as either productive actions or ones having negative implications.

Productive action

The act of using power was perceived as “the ability to get things done,” or as one student wrote, “acknowledging the existence of power and engaging with it.” Students who perceived power as productive appear to have had the opportunity to exercise productive action on behalf of a person seeking services (client). As one student stated, “Power is the ability to drive, create, or inspire change.” This same student added, “It can be assigned, given or earned.” The second part of the student's statement implied that power was a resource to be distributed. Resources were generally discussed as helping to meet a person's basic needs, “securing needed resources,” as identified either “for or with the client.” The ability of the worker to locate needed resources was perceived as an action of power. In other words: “Power is having resources available to meet your needs and having the knowledge to secure resources if you are not able to meet your needs.”

Student participants used the word empower to capture actions of both the social worker and the client. As one student shared, “I have seen what empowered clients can accomplish when armed with the right tools and directed toward the right resources. I have also seen those clients, in turn, go and teach others what they learned.” Another student focused on the social work role in action:

When I think about how I presently interact with clients I believe I encourage clients decision making however, it is a work in progress. An example of this interaction would be creating a pro and con list with a client based on a housing placement. It was useful for the client to list their pro and con perspectives as they, not I, would be living in the housing choice.

Operationalizing power as a productive action implied a certain comfort level students experienced with knowing that they have and hold power in social work practice. Emergent in the data were also perceptions of power as having negative implications.

Negative implications

The discomfort with the word power and what it looks like in practice was an emergent subtheme. One student described the perception of negative power:

Power is the authority or decision making capacity one has over another person and the thoughts, words and actions one takes upon others as a way toward personal gain or pride at the expense of the other person. It is strength and influence used to take advantage of weaker, vulnerable, less knowing people. I personally feel power has a negative connotation and emotion behind it because of experiences where those who were in positions to make decisions or influence others made choices that had negative consequences to others. The actions, thoughts and beliefs were self gratifying and exploited others who were not in positions to make decisions.

The students who observed the negative implications of power spoke to the misuse and abuse of power by workers. As one student stated, “I have witnessed the less empowering co-worker and found it uncomfortable for me to observe a client's decision process being made for them.”

The client's perception of power having negative implications was best illustrated by a student who shared her own process in her mental health recovery:

The fact that I was left out of my own treatment decisions and was not allowed to have a voice was very disempowering to me and left me viewing my treatment team as ‘the enemy' rather than a source of help for my illness.

The word control was used by students. For example, “Power is control over someone or something else,” and “I would define power as the ability to exert control of circumstances of one's self or others as a result of being invested with opportunity, authority or status.” This same student added, “In order for power to be possessed by some it must be deficient for others.” Students' perceptions of power as negative resembles the notion of power-over in which one person wins and another loses (Bundy-Fazioli, 2004; Rapoport, 1966). In other words, someone in the relationship will have and hold more power, authority, control, or influence than the other person.

Understanding students' operational definition of power as productive or negative provides a foundation to understanding how the students perceived professional power. It seemed logical that students' notion of power as a dichotomous concept would support their conceptualization of professional power. However, this was not the case. Instead students' conceptualization of professional power illustrated the multidimensional and perhaps complex nature of power in action.

Conceptualizing Professional Power

Students' perceptions of professional power in practice varied. The three emergent subthemes within this category are making sense of professional power, striving for true collaboration and partnership, and leadership.

Making sense of professional power

Students were forthright about their struggles in conceptualizing or using professional power. As one student wrote, “I know I hold professional power but when, where, how, how much and with whom are difficult to sort out.” Another student stated, “Professional power is a tricky thing. There are times when it is needed and I find myself struggling to feel competent enough to use it.” This statement reflects the student's ambivalence about professional power and perhaps his or her discomfort with using authority.

However, this same student concluded by saying:

I hope that in my current and future practice as a professional, I will be sensitive enough to the needs of the client to be able to recognize how best to use this power and to never use it in a way that is disempowering to a client.

Another student spoke specifically to making sense of professional power in practice by stating:

Difficulty arises when personal issues or personality types clash with my own. For instance, I lose patience with clients who display a flippant attitude and treat probation as a joke … this is the point where personal integrity is closely related to professional power. I could often “order” certain requirements and be justified legally, but if my motivation is vindictive, I think the action is inappropriate. In those situations, I at least have the support of other officers with whom I can staff cases in the hopes of gaining a balanced perspective, and not instinctively lashing out.

The importance of exercising professional power in a manner that is helpful and not hurtful was stressed by students. As one student said, “If it were me who was blind to my insensitive [sic] or short comings as a professional, I would certainly want to be informed and guided to improve.”

Students appeared cognizant of their transition from graduate student to social work professional. This transition was captured by a student who stated:

I have thought long and hard about what I hope to accomplish in serving as a social work practitioner. My greatest hope is to help others achieve greater joy and satisfaction in their lives both in the short and the long term.

Students were thoughtful of this transition and wanted to ensure they were acting in the best interest of the client. As one student remarked, “The capacity for social workers to affect and influence people's lives is great.”

Striving for true collaboration and partnership

The participating students appeared to be making a conscientious effort to be aware of their power as experts as well as their power to develop a collaborative relationship. The desire “to have [the] courage to address power and to continually strive for true collaboration” with clients seemed to be the agreed-upon sentiment for students who embraced the concept of empowerment and strengths-based practice. The notion of acting as an expert was associated with a disingenuous working relationship. In other words, one student acknowledged:

The idea of an “expert” must be fought against if a true, collaborative relationship is to be formed. Though there will be times when the therapist may need to be more directive, this should be done within a relationship of trust and collaboration.

Another student wrote, “I see professional power as how and where the goals, decision making, and plans are made between the professional and client.” The language of collaboration and partnership were discussed as acting with another person to accomplish a specific goal.

The importance of mediation and brokering on behalf of the client was also raised in connection with partnering with clients. One student stated:

Working in partnership with the client, the social worker can rely on his or her professional power to influence the organization/agency in the best interest of the client. Professional power can be used to connect the client to support structures and networks outside of the client's current resources. As the client learns of new resources, he or she will also gain new skills of self-advocacy and gain additional power in this process.

The notion of partnership demonstrates the complexity of the relationship in which both the social worker and the client bring knowledge and skills to be openly discussed and shared. The specifics of the worker's skills are also associated with the word leadership. Often the language of leadership refers to one in authority. However, students who used the language of leadership spoke of leadership more broadly.

Leadership

The concept of professional power as leadership was discussed from two perspectives: one of learning from supervisors on how to use professional power and one of demonstrating leadership qualities in practice with clients. Students' perspectives on leadership ranged from one of reciprocal and shared power to one of acting on behalf of the client and knowing what is best for him or her. Confusion emerged around leadership; on the one hand students engaged in a reciprocal approach with clients and on the other hand professed to know what was best for the client (one of expertise).

Students reflected on past and current supervisors who had helped shape their beliefs about professional power. One student wrote about a past supervisor:

My first supervisor provided leadership that was very team oriented and believed in me and that I was capable to perform my responsibilities. She focused on building confidence, created a relationship where I was able to speak freely and safely with her about my professional struggles. She encouraged personal and professional growth, and trusted me in my role and supported my ideas and to take risks. She was respectful of my abilities as a social worker, provided support and offered her skills when I turned to her. It was a strong working relationship that was nurturing and encouraging. I felt respected and confident.

To illustrate the use of self in practice, one student explained that “professional power is also providing leadership that is called for to meet the needs of those being served. This requires paying close attention to those being served and listening actively and questioning skillfully.”

An important point students made was the context in which leadership was required. As one student stated:

There are times, for example, working with the children in [name of city], where clear leadership and boundary setting is needed. There are other times, also with the children, and in counseling others, that using my professional power to follow (or be a support/ cheerleader) is the best way to be of service to the client.

Perhaps this last excerpt describes the nuanced nature of power one chooses to use in practice situations. It illustrates the complexities and multidimensional nature of professional power in practice.

DISCUSSION

The emergent theme on operationalizing power captures students' ability to make sense of what power is and how it looks in practice. The subtheme of context matters situates students' perceptions of power within governing agency structures and how these governing forces affect their work with clients. There appears to be an understanding that social workers possess power over clients simply through the nature of the positions they hold and because of the structural environments in which they intern or are employed. Students articulated their grasp of the concept power-over (hierarchical power structures) and power together (the potential to be involved in more than one power construct at a time) as sharing power with a client while simultaneously feeling oppressed and confined by governing rules and regulations of the agency. What students did not seem to fully articulate was Tew's (2006) concept of power to, contributing toward oppressive power structures based on agency power, individual privilege, and societal oppression.

In the delivery of direct services, students appeared to have an ambivalent relationship with power. Students' understanding of power was viewed as either productive or as having negative implications. Productive use of power was perceived as obtaining resources for the client, empowering the client, and ensuring that the client was involved in decision making that affected his or her life. The positive actions identified reinforce the NASW value of social justice and the ethical principle Social workers challenge social injustice. “Social workers strive to ensure access to needed information, services and resources; equality of opportunity; and meaningful participation in decision making for all people” (2008, p. 3). Students seemed to fully embrace the notion that client empowerment was associated with the individual's ability to independently obtain and secure necessary resources without awareness of existing societal structures and forces that maintain oppression. In other words, students could be simultaneously engaged in many different types of power relationships, including contributing to governing forces in a manner that was potentially perpetuating and strengthening oppressive structures that they may detest.

In contrast, the negative implications were perceived as having power over a client and doing for the client in a manner that could be construed as disempowering for a client. Students expressed their discomfort with the use of power in practice and acknowledged the negative impact undue professional influence can have over others, including oppression and behavioral control. These expressions of discomfort signify an awareness of how the negative use of power by social workers can affect the lives of those with whom they are working. The negative use of power is perceived as a unidirectional authority of workers to distribute resources to clients without consideration of other power constructs. Generalist programs strive to ensure that students are educated to understand micro, mezzo, and macro levels of practice. Social workers are the representatives of the agencies, and yet they must be aware and constantly guard against hierarchical beliefs and practices that may be disempowering to clients. In these situations, students were able to articulate clearly how in partnership with clients they were able to exercise their professional power to influence the larger structural systems. Students appeared to be more aware of the complex nature of their relationships with clients and the need to buffer and navigate within existing power structures (i.e., agencies, governmental policies, legal systems).

Students' conceptualization of professional power appeared to be in flux. Students had a sense of what power is and what it looks like in practice; however, when discussing how they will wield professional power, they seemed unsure. Students were able to articulate a deep level of understanding regarding their difficulties in conceptualizing professional power and the immensity of the potential power differential that can exist between social worker and client. Students expressed their belief in the importance of collaborating and partnering with clients in a manner that empowers, although they were unable to fully articulate what they needed to do to engage a client in a process of shared power in order to reach a particular goal. Students' discernment about the harmful effects of professional power aided their transition from student learner to professional practitioner, and yet their ability to conceptualize power in a manner other than hierarchical appeared to be lacking. This inability may be possibly attributed to a number of factors, such as the instructor's class discussion on power (thus limitations of the instructor), the social work profession's evolving perceptions of power, or perhaps societal and structural forces.

Only when students discussed the concept of leadership in professional power did they begin to demonstrate their ability to identify a conceptual framework of power other than linear and hierarchical. For example, students reflected on their experience of a supervisor who was able to model a collaborative feminist approach in supervision within a hierarchical relationship, as well as a supervisor who professed the importance of collaboration but then dictated what should be done in the delivery of services. This perception suggests a deeper understanding as well as a conscious ability to be reflexive with professional power based on the context of a situation.

In sum, second-year master's social work practice students in this study appeared comfortable and ready to engage in theoretical and practice-related discussions on the distribution of professional power. One may safely assert that most social work students in master's programs are open to engaging in these types of discussions on power. However, as students engaged in more focused discussions of power, they also appeared to struggle intellectually when attempting to unpack opposing ways in which power is defined. Initially, this struggle was perceived as a developmental process that with further experience would be less of a struggle. Upon further reflection, a question was raised as to whether students were reflecting what they were learning in their coursework. In other words, are social work instructors able to fully deconstruct power, privilege, and oppression? The social work field itself is somewhat unsettled in the ways in which power is defined and discussed in the relationship that develops between social worker and client. A notable parallel seems to exist between the profession's confusion of how power is implemented in practice settings and students' lack of depth and clarity in understanding or analyzing the role of power in their own professional relationships.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

If social workers are to become effective helping professionals equipped with the ability to operationalize a collaborative empowerment model, students should be allocated sufficient academic opportunities and time to develop their own theoretical position. To help students conceive of professional power in a manner other than linear and hierarchical, they must be exposed to and asked to critically analyze opposing definitions of each theory as it applies to the context of a given situation.

Tew (2006) and Bundy-Fazioli et al. (2009) suggested a broader, more flexible structural context for consciously applying power in practice with clients. From the perspective of power-with, differences are acknowledged and discussed openly with clients. In this perspective, the conceptualization of power does not adhere to one theory alone. Instead, the determination of how to wield professional power occurs only after critical evaluation of several theoretical perspectives and implications about how the application will affect the client. In addition, students must be taught to identify the power structures within agencies that influence their relationship with clients and to be aware of when they must guard against them. It is recommended that students engage in critical discussion on how they operationalize power as well as how they perceive use of professional power in practice. The influence of agencies, organizations, and supervisory experiences remains significant for students. Thus, if their placements or supervisors had not considered these issues themselves, the likelihood of students developing their own practice philosophies around power is less likely. In all likelihood social work programs will bring students only to a level of awareness that has been achieved by the instructor. This idea suggests implications that transcend all practice levels. In other words, social work programs can bring students only as far as their own awareness, and in turn practicing social workers can bring clients along only as far as their own awareness—hence, a parallel process that has the potential to stifle attempts at partnership, collaboration, and empowerment.

The social work profession is laden with opportunities to critically assess how power is distributed in the working relationship. Yet, as a profession, it is not clear that we engage in explicit discourse on power. Perhaps this negligence is due to the varying perceptions of how power is exercised in practice (see, for example, Bundy-Fazioli et al., 2009; Cohen, 1998; Diorio, 1992). Social workers share a universal understanding of power as guided by the NASW Code of Ethics (2008) mission “to enhance human well-being and help meet the basic human needs of all people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty” (p. 1). We argue that the NASW mission provides guidance on whom we seek to assist and less on how this service looks in practice. If social work practice students are to grow as professionals, their supervisors and the agencies in which they are located must also exhibit a level of readiness to engage in these discussions to promote professional development. Professional training on power and the use and abuse of power for social workers in the field and their supervisors appears to be needed. Explicit discussions of the use of professional power may lead us to better understand power and to behave in ways that lead to productive action rather than result in potentially negative outcomes. It is important for students who engage in practice to be aware of the dual relationship that doing for clients is not always clearly productive. Unless the social worker's intentions in doing for are consciously examined, the outcome of the act may have the unintended consequence of reinforcing the client's sense of powerlessness within the working relationship.

An opportunity exists in professional trainings and academic settings to teach students how to critically examine power structures when assessing and intervening with clients. Thus, we recommend that we teach students early in their career about professional power to promote cognitive awareness that will grow and transform as they develop skills to address more complex practice and power issues.

CONCLUSION

This research helps expand the linear power relationship construct between workers and clients to one that is multidimensional and inclusive of power relationships that occur simultaneously within and outside the workplace. Although some scholars consider power and privilege in other disciplines, the social work field has devoted little scholarship to developing this discourse, particularly as it applies to the allocation of resources. Research and scholarship that further our current understanding of power in social work practice are needed.

Many agencies and social work programs appear to give students the impression that shared power is a realistic way to conceptualize social work relationships with clients and thus incorporate within their practice. However, there appears to be no real engagement for a meaningful discussion on the discourse of power and power relationships that teases out the complexities and binary meanings of having power over or having power with clients. If practice students and social work professionals alike are to understand, consider, and take responsibility for the power that is endemic in social work relationships, this area of scholarship and practice must develop.