Under the delusive wings of the welfare state: engagement in the policy process among social work faculty members in Sweden

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive statistics.

Characteristics	Categories	N	(%)
Age (n = 238) (M = 50 years)	–30	11	5
	31–40	55	23
	41–50	79	33
	51–60	64	27
	60+	29	12
Gender (n = 276)	Male	167	39
	Female	209	61
Academic Rank/Position (n = 283)	Adjunct faculty	25	10
	PhD student	57	20
	Lecturer*	158	57
	Professor	36	13

*Lecturer includes assistant/associate professors, researchers, senior lecturers and postdocs.

Table 2. Engagement in different policy practice activities (N = 283).

	Mean (1–4*)	Never	Once/ A few times	Frequently
Press interviews	2.50	24%	64%	12%
Participated in protest activity	2.10	46%	43%	11%
Formulated a position paper	1.99	44%	49%	7%
Sent publications to policy makers	1.92	48%	48%	4%
Published an article in the press	1.88	53%	42%	5%
Participated in a coalition	1.87	55%	37%	8%
Advised policy makers	1.87	54%	40%	6%
Advised an advocacy organisation	1.86	53%	41%	6%
Assisted service users to organise	1.81	58%	36%	6%
Participated in a policy-related activity by social workers	1.81	56%	40%	4%
Worked with students to influence policy	1.75	61%	31%	8%
Served in a policy-related committee	1.74	60%	36%	4%
Advised a policy-related committee	1.74	56%	42%	2%
Analysed policy on behalf of policy makers or an advocacy organisation	1.51	70%	28%	2%
Wrote a blog in a social network	1.35	83%	12%	5%
Organised a protest activity	1.30	82%	16%	2%
Chaired a policy-related committee	1.21	88%	11%	1%
Been a speaker at a demonstration	1.20	88%	11%	1%
Testified in a legislative committee	1.15	91%	8%	1%
Participated in an appeal to the courts	1.15	92%	7%	1%

*1 = never, 2 = once, 3 = a few times, 4 = frequently.

Table 3. Perceived impact on policy makers and advocacy organisations (N = 284).

	Mean (1–5)	Never	2	3	4	Extensively/ Very extensively	Do not know
To the best of your knowledge how often have: policy makers read your publications	1.86	22%	25%	15%	7%	3%	29%
policy makers cited your publications	1.52	33%	19%	12%	5%	1%	30%
policy makers drawn upon your recommendations	1.61	30%	20%	13%	7%	0%	29%
advocacy organisations cited your publications	2.06	21%	17%	17%	12%	3%	30%
advocacy organisations drawn upon your recommendations	1.91	25%	16%	15%	8%	4%	32%

Table 4. Perceived impact on social policy on different levels (N = 283).

	Mean (1–5)	Never	2	3	4	Frequently
During your career as a faculty member in social work, have you acted to: influence social (welfare) policy on the national level	2.11	34%	20%	26%	14%	5%
influence social (welfare) policy on the local level	2.17	34%	20%	23%	17%	6%
To what degree do you assess that: you have had an impact on national social (welfare) policy	1.65	45%	32%	13%	10%	1%
you have had an impact on local social (welfare) policy	1.78	40%	31%	18%	9%	3%

Table 5. Perceived role as social work faculty member (N = 283).

	Mean (1–5)	Strongly disagree	2	3	4	Strongly agree
1. Social work practice role
As a social work faculty member my role is to: influence social work practice	3.83	2%	7%	16%	30%	43%
develop knowledge that will contribute to social work	4.03	3%	4%	12%	26%	56%
influence the way social workers will perceive service users’ problems	3.86	2%	7%	17%	26%	48%
2. Professional role
As a social work faculty member my role is to: develop knowledge intended for academics	3.83	2%	6%	19%	26%	46%
enhance knowledge that contributes to a scientific discussion	4.01	3%	2%	14%	29%	53%
engage in theoretical development	3.82	2%	7%	16%	30%	44%
3. Critical role
As a social work faculty member my role is to: enhance academics’ understanding of the social factors influencing individual distress	3.68	2%	9%	21%	27%	40%
develop knowledge that will contribute to the furthering of critical social thinking among academics	3.91	3%	7%	11%	31%	49%
enhance academics’ consciousness of power relations in society	3.79	1%	7%	21%	33%	38%
4. Public role
As a social work faculty member my role is to: develop knowledge that will contribute to the general public	3.61	1%	11%	21%	33%	34%
influence the way social problems are perceived by the general public	3.43	4%	11%	25%	33%	27%
5. Policy role
As a social work faculty member my role is to: influence the way that the general public thinks about how to deal with social problems	3.51	1%	13%	23%	33%	30%
assist policy makers dealing with social problems	3.19	5%	16%	28%	30%	21%
influence the formulation of social (welfare) policy	3.30	5%	16%	24%	29%	27%
develop knowledge that will contribute to social (welfare) policy	3.54	3%	10%	24%	32%	31%

Table 6. Perceived resources to influence social policy (N = 283).

	Mean	Not at all	2	3	4	To a large extent
Knowledge	3.62	1%	16%	24%	37%	22%
Motivation	3.52	3%	13%	30%	35%	18%
Commitment	3.39	3%	16%	36%	27%	17%
Skills	3.34	4%	20%	31%	29%	16%
Self-efficacy	3.09	5%	21%	43%	20%	11%