Assessing how social work programs use their websites to convey a commitment to social justice

ABSTRACT

Social justice is a key tenet for the social work profession and education, calling for commitment to working with and for vulnerable and oppressed populations. In fact, undergraduate and master’s programs are accredited by CSWE, in part, based on fulfilling educational competencies related to supporting diversity and advancing social justice. Websites are one critical avenue through which social work programs communicate a commitment to social justice and other social work values. This study is an examination of how social work programs use their websites to convey a commitment to social justice to prospective students. Programs were identified using CSWE’s accreditation list (N = 590). A social justice messaging index was created by coding program websites for five indicators: social justice language on the homepage; mission/vision statement includes social justice; evidence of a diversity, equity, and inclusion initiative; social justice language on all degree overview pages; and a social justice course required for all degrees. The most common indicator was inclusion of social justice in the programs’ mission or vision statements (43%). The least common was evidence of a diversity, equity, and inclusion initiative (10%). No school met all five criteria. Implications for social work education are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• Social justice
• social work education
• higher education

1. Introduction

Social justice is foundational to the social work profession and is codified as one of six core values in the National Association of Social Workers’ (NASW, 2021) Code of Ethics, which calls on social workers to promote social change and social justice. These values are accompanied by an ethical principle that social workers challenge injustice with and on behalf of marginalized and oppressed people and communities (NASW, 2021). Further, the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), which is the national association in the United States that represents and accredits social work programs, lays out the role of social justice in the education of social work students via curriculum and field placements. The CSWE Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS), which set the competencies upon which undergraduate and graduate social work programs are accredited, state that ‘the purpose of social work is actualized through a quest for social and economic justice’ (CSWE, 2015, p. 4). This commitment is further delineated in Competency Three, Advance Human Rights and Social, Economic, and Environmental Justice, and Competency Five, Engage in Policy Practice. Thus, programs are responsible for ensuring students understand social justice and are prepared to advance social justice within their practice (CSWE, 2015). Lastly, the Global Standards for Social Work Education, set by both the International Federation of Social Workers and the International Association of Schools of Social Work, clearly states that schools should have a curriculum based on ‘human rights principles and the pursuit of justice’ (International Federation of Social Workers, 2020, Section 3: Curriculum, para 2).

Given the role of social justice within social work and social work education, it is imperative to recruit students who are ready and willing to commit to the profession’s social justice values (Abramovitz, 1993; Funge, 2011; Specht & Courtney, 1995). Thus, attention should be given to how programs connect social justice to their mission, programming, and course offerings. Understanding how social work programs convey a commitment to social justice to prospective students is important to understand because websites are a primary recruiting tool and are often the first resource used by potential applicants. The current study was designed to investigate how schools and departments of social work use their websites to communicate their commitment to social justice.

2. Literature review

2.1. Social justice in higher education

The internet has been one of various channels colleges and universities utilize to communicate with prospective students since the 1990s (Kittle & Ciba, 2001). With the advancement of technology, the internet has profoundly changed how prospective students acquire information and has become an essential means used in selecting higher learning institutions (Chapin & Fitzgerald, 2002). Likewise, school websites have become a highly utilized resource in reaching out to prospective students (Chapin & Fitzgerald, 2002). Higher education is considered a competitive industry as students have numerous colleges, universities, and programs to choose between. Consequently, students depend on program messaging to guide their decisions. Because of this, the accessibility and convenient nature of the internet further contribute to the pressure on schools to recruit and retain students (Chapin & Fitzgerald, 2002).

There has been increased demand by campus educators and external stakeholders, such as students’ family members, trustees, accreditors, and alumni, for institutions of higher education to communicate their position on advancing diversity, inclusion, and social justice within and beyond classroom experiences (Ahmed, 2012; Jaschik, 2015). For institutions of higher education, diversity is an essential element for fostering not only institutional excellence but also for promoting students’ academic excellence (Williams et al., 2005). In their Inclusive Excellence Change Model, Williams et al. (2005) posit that a strong commitment to increasing diversity and advancing social justice will lower perceptions of racial tension on campus, increase grade point averages among minority students, and increase personal interests in promoting racial understating. Communicating a clear and visible position on diversity and social justice demonstrates an institution’s transparency and commitment efforts to promoting a healthy and multicultural environment (Antonio, 2001).

Many schools use their websites to inform prospective students of their missions and values, as well as to publish their diversity plans, policies, and initiatives. While research in this area is limited, one example is a content analysis of 23 institution websites that examined how campus educators incorporate diversity and social justice content on their websites. One finding from this study was that schools incorporate diversity and inclusion content in various ways, including within mission and vision statements and in strategic planning documents. However, the terminology used and the specific commitments articulated varied. Also common was using the website to promote programs, initiatives, and events related to diversity, inclusion, and social justice (LePeau et al., 2018).

2.2. Social justice messaging in social work education

Several studies have examined how social justice is incorporated in social work curriculum (Harrison et al., 2016; Vincent, 2012), courses (Atteberry-Ash et al., 2021; Deepak et al., 2015), syllabi (Hong & Hodge, 2009), and even how educators and field instructors feel about promoting social justice (Funge, 2011; Havig, 2013). However, fewer studies have examined how social work programs convey a commitment to social justice through communication tools, including websites and social media. One particularly relevant example is Young’s (2020) computational analysis of how social work programs use Twitter. This study found that tweets generally fell into three themes: 1) sharing information about program activities, 2) promoting community engagement, and 3) raising social justice awareness and becoming activists. Notably, raising social justice awareness and becoming activists was the least common theme—representing only six percent of the 2,509 tweets analyzed.

Using the EPAS as an analysis framework, Stango and Carter (2017) found that nine of the top ten social work programs had a mission statement that mentioned social justice or the alleviation of injustice. However, while the top ten schools of social work all had information on their websites related to issues of diversity, with varying magnitude, only one school had an entire page devoted to diversity, including a video, strategic plan, and explanation of how diversity is integrated within the curriculum (Stango & Carter, 2017).

Because of the centrality of social justice to the profession, it is vital that social work programs clearly communicate a commitment to social justice through messaging and curriculum. It is also important to show prospective students, and the broader community, how the profession’s ethics and values are translated into actions to fight injustices (Reisch & Andrews, 2002). Critically, a clear presentation of what social work is and the role of social justice within social work practice may enhance recruitment efforts by drawing students with an interest in social change work. A study of administrators from NASW partner schools found that students often enter a social work degree program with misperceptions about social work, including a lack of understanding of how it differs from other professions (e.g. psychology) and a lack of awareness of macro social work (NASW, 2008). Once in a program, educating students about social justice is necessary for preparing social workers to improve social conditions and institutions and to be competent in the realms of social change, community organizing, and policy advocacy (Abramovitz, 1993).

It has been argued that globalization, growing economic inequality, and political tensions around social policy and social welfare provision underscores the need for social work practice grounded in social justice and human rights (Lundy & van Wormer, 2007). In the United States, state and local governments are attempting to control and even criminalize the inclusion of curriculum directly tied to social justice, including topics on race, gender and gender identity, sexuality, and identity in general (see: Stout & Wilburn, 2022). Specific to the profession, a directive in Texas imposes a duty on the Department of Family and Protective Services to investigate parents of children who may be receiving gender-affirming care (Abbott, 2022)—the directive implores social workers to actively go against the Code of Ethics. Given these examples, it is important that programs communicate their commitment to fighting such injustices to prospective students, current students, and the community.

Given the increased demand for an overt connection to how social justice is included within higher education at large and within programs (Ahmed, 2012; Jaschik, 2015), the numerous calls to better and more clearly integrate social justice into social work education (Abramovitz, 1993; Atteberry-Ash, in press; Funge, 2011; Specht & Courtney, 1995), and the need to clearly communicate social work’s commitment to social justice (CSWE, 2015; NASW, 2021; Stango & Carter, 2017), the current study aimed to develop a social justice messaging index to describe how social work programs convey a commitment to social justice on their websites. A second aim was to use this index to assess whether messaging differed based on school type, degrees offered, and geographic region.

3. Methods

3.1. Sample

A spreadsheet of social work programs and their websites was created using the CSWE directory of accredited programs—excluding schools that had closed or that were in the process of accreditation withdrawal. The final list included 590 programs.

3.2. Coding procedure

The first author created a codebook with instructions for identifying social justice content on the websites of social work programs. The guide was divided into four sections, including general information (e.g. location, school type), mission and vision statements, BSW degree information, MSW degree information, PhD degree information, and DSW degree information. Each section had a set of coding variables. A companion spreadsheet was created that contained the list of all 590 social work programs, their websites, and variables that matched the codebook. The codebook, instructions, and spreadsheet were piloted by the first and second authors on 20 randomly selected schools to ensure instructions were clear and universally applicable. The codebook and instructions were refined following this process, with the aim of having a coding strategy that applied across programs.

The remaining programs were randomly and evenly assigned to each of the four authors. The first and second authors (both faculty at a school of social work) trained the third and fourth authors (both doctoral students at the same school of social work) on the coding process. This process entailed coding two programs as a group to demonstrate the process and then each student coded two programs on their own that were then cross-checked by the first and second authors. All four coders then coded ten programs independently and reconvened to discuss any questions and make needed revisions to the codebook, instructions, and spreadsheet. Then, the remaining programs were coded. Once all programs were done, each coder reviewed someone else’s entries to ensure all variables were complete and to identify any errors. Any identified errors or inconsistencies were then corrected by the original coder. The coding and cross-checking process occurred from June through October of 2021. Prior to beginning any data analysis, the lead author did a final data screening in Stata to identify and correct any remaining errors. At this stage, programs were also grouped into CSWE’s ten geographic regions (CSWE, 2020).

3.3. Social justice messaging index

To develop the social justice messaging index (SJMI) used in the analysis presented here, we used the following five indicators. First, we coded whether there was social justice language on the home page, including reference to social change, diversity, equity, inclusion, or oppression. Second, we coded whether there was social justice language on overview pages for any degrees offered. Third, we coded whether there was a mission and/or vision statement that included social justice. Fourth, we coded whether a social justice course was required in any of the degree programs. For this indicator, the course had to be a stand-alone class separate from standard practice and policy courses. Fifth, we coded whether there was a diversity, equity, and inclusion initiative—separate from initiatives at the university or college level. For each indicator, programs received a 1 if the criterion was met and a 0 if not. The SJMI score is a sum of the five indicators, which results in a potential range of 0 to 5.

3.4. Analysis

Bivariate analyses were used to describe programs across the five SJMI indicators and to assess the SJMI score distribution. Analysis of variance tests, along with appropriate post hoc pairwise comparisons, were used to compare SJMI scores across school type, degrees offered, and CSWE regions. For post-hoc comparisons, Tukey’s honestly significant difference test was used to compare means while controlling the probability of making Type I errors.

4. Findings

Of the 590 programs reviewed, 532 (90.17%) offer a BSW, 337 (57.12%) offer an MSW, 73 (12.37%) offer a PhD, and 21 (3.56%) offer a DSW. Table 1 presents findings for the five indicators in the SJMI and the total score distribution. Just over one-third had social justice language on their homepage, less than half had a mission and/or vision statement that included social justice, and ten percent had a diversity, equity, and inclusion initiative. Just over one-third had social justice on all degree overview pages and roughly forty percent had a required social justice course in all degree plans. Adding all five indicators together, the average SJMI score was 1.66 (Md = 2, SD = 1.05), with a range of zero to four and mode of two. Almost 15% had a score of zero and no school met all five criteria.

Table 1. Social justice messaging index (N = 590).

Indicators	n	Percent
Have social justice language on the home page	219	37.12
Have a mission/vision statement that includes social justice	256	43.39
Have a diversity, equity, and inclusion initiative	60	10.17
Have social justice language on all degree overview pages	205	34.75
Have a required social justice course for all degrees	239	40.51
SJMI Score Distribution	n	Percent
0	86	14.58
1	178	30.17
2	203	34.41
3	97	16.44
4	26	4.41
5	0	0

Table 2 shows the results of analysis of variance tests examining the relationship between the SJMI and school type, degrees offered, and CSWE region. Social work programs in public schools had an average SJMI of 1.71—higher than programs in both private religious schools (M = 1.61) and programs in private non-religious schools (M = 1.52). However, the relationship between school type and the SJMI was not significant. In contrast, the relationship between the types of degrees offered and the SJMI was significant, F(3, 596) = 2.83, p = .038. The lowest average SJMI scores were found among programs that offer a BSW only (M = 1.62) or MSW and BSW only (M = 1.58). The highest scores were found among programs that offer a PhD and/or DSW. Programs that offer an MSW and PhD/DSW had an average SJMI score of 2.0, while programs that offer a BSW, MSW, and PhD/DSW had an average score of 1.78. A post hoc Tukey test showed that programs that offer an MSW and PhD/DSW had an SJMI that was significantly higher than programs that offer a BSW and MSW only (p = .038). All other pairwise comparisons were not significant.

Table 2. SJMI by school type, degrees offered, and CSWE region.

			SJMI Score Anova Results
Variable	n	Percent	M	SD	p
School type
Public	320	54.24	1.71	1.06	.350
Private, non-religious	50	8.47	1.52	1.03
Private, religious	220	37.29	1.61	1.04
Degree(s) offered
BSW only	253	42.88	1.62	.99	.038
BSW and MSW only	219	37.12	1.58	1.09
MSW and PhD/DSW only	58	9.83	2.00	1.14
BSW, MSW, and PhD/DSW	60	10.17	1.78	1.08
CSWE region
Great Lakes	127	21.53	1.64	.98	.015
Mid-Atlantic	71	12.03	1.69	1.05
Mid-Central	48	8.14	1.83	1.00
New England	36	6.10	1.97	.94
North Central	23	3.90	1.61	1.34
Northeast	48	8.14	1.67	1.24
Northwest	19	3.22	2.11	1.24
South Central	64	10.85	1.48	1.07
Southeast	112	18.98	1.40	.93
West	42	7.12	1.98	1.07

Finally, the relationship between CSWE regionand SJMI was also significant, F(9, 580) = 2.30, p = .015. The highest average SJMI scores were found in the Northwest region (M =2.11), West region (M = 1.98), and New England region (M = 1.97). The lowest average SJMI scores were found in the Southeast region (M =1.40) and South Central region (M = 1.48). A post hoc Tukey test showed none of the pairwise comparisons reached statistical significance.

5. Discussion

Having social justice in a mission or vision statement was the most often achieved indicator, followed by having a stand-alone social justice course in all degree programs offered. This finding is in line with the profession’s guiding documents that clearly lay out the role of social justice in social work’s professional mission and require programs to either have a stand-alone course that covers social justice or to infuse such topics throughout the curriculum (CSWE, 2015; Deepak et al., 2015; Hong & Hodge, 2009; Ledoux & Montalvo, 1999). No accredited program in the country achieved a five on the SJMI. This finding can serve as a reflection point that overall social work programs are not answering the call to clearly communicate how they operationalize a commitment to social justice (Ahmed, 2012; Jaschik, 2015).

A significant critique in the literature on assessing how schools communicate social justice related stances on their website is that schools’ actions do not always align with the goals in their mission and vision statements (Harper & Quaye, 2015; Patton, 2016). To address this critique, it has been suggested that schools provide evidence of actions taken to fulfill their diversity, inclusion, and social justice commitment (Ahmed 2012; Patton, 2016). While we do not know how many of the social work programs in our sample have established formal diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, only 60 schools (10%) directly named, described, or had an entire page dedicated to actions they were taking to directly address issues of inequity or injustice. Notably, of the five indicators in the SJMI, this was the least common across schools.

Another suggestion for providing clear connections to how programs communicate a commitment to social justice is including language inclusive of social justice on home pages, in mission and vision statements (which should be highly visible, for example, posted on a program’s home page), and on degree overview pages. Other suggestions are to provide examples of roles that social workers can go into that are aligned with social justice (e.g., legal advocate, community organizer) and clearly providing course descriptions for social justice related courses. Providing accurate descriptions of courses can also extend beyond social justice courses to courses that may incorporate social justice into other topics so students can see how the concept is reflected across social work curriculum. Pepper and colleagues (2010) stated that by providing detailed evidence, students and faculty gain power and are better equipped to hold their schools accountable for following through with their commitments.

Lastly, it is important to stress here that these suggestions are not simply to drop the word “social justice” onto these web pages and into course descriptions. The intention is to encourage programs to explore and critically reflect on the role of social justice within their school/department, degree offerings, and curriculum, which will require investing time, energy, and in some cases financial resources. The goal of this process is twofold. First, it is important for schools to understand if and how they convey a commitment to social justice to prospective and current students. Second, because social work’s professional ethics and values call on schools to prepare students to work towards social change and fight injustice, it is imperative to come to terms with how well that is being accomplished.

In looking to the differences found between SJMI scores and school characteristics, programs offering a BSW only and programs offering both a BSW and MSW had the lowest SJMI scores. Additionally, SJMI scores for programs offering a MSW and PhD/DSW were significantly higher than programs offering a BSW and MSW only. These findings are surprising given that the EPAS are directed at BSW and MSW degree programs and do not apply to PhD and DSW degree programs. One explanation could be that schools that offer only a BSW often do not have a standalone social work department. The degree may be nestled, for example, in a sociology department or college of human services. Thus, how the BSW is framed is influenced by how the larger department is framed. Additionally, schools that offer just a BSW or both a BSW and MSW may be smaller than those that have a comprehensive degree offering. Smaller programs may have less resources to develop language, content, and even for website creation.

When comparing SJMI by CSWE region, schools in the South Central and Southeast had the lowest SJMI scores. This finding may reflect political trends of those regions, which tend to skew more conservative (Park et al., 2020), and states in these regions may even have policies regarding how overtly public institutions can communicate concepts related to social justice (Flaherty, 2021).

6. Limitations

It is important to recognize several limitations that exist within this study. First, the accreditation organization in the United States, CSWE, requires that schools integrate social justice into curriculum through either incorporation throughout the content or in a stand-alone course. For the purposes of this project, we were only able to track if programs had a stand-alone course, so it is possible that the programs who did not have a course were instead infusing social justice throughout their curriculum. Also, this research focused on social justice, in alignment with CSWE guidance and the NASW Code of Ethics. However, some programs may use the term human rights instead of social justice. While the data used in this study contained few instances where human rights appeared and social justice did not, this limitation is important in the application of this research to an international context in which the terms may be used interchangeably. Because of this, replicating this study in other countries and conducting cross-national comparisons is a worthy direction for future research.

7. Conclusion

While social justice is firmly connected to the profession of social work, this study found that schools are not clearly communicating that connection. The connection to social justice makes social work unique compared to other helping professions and, yet, is often left out of how programs describe their approach to social work. This lack of communication may have negative implications on recruitment and retention, especially as it relates to the recruitment of diverse students (Stango & Carter, 2017). The lack of communication on how schools operationalize their approach to social justice may be a symptom of the siloed nature of academia where programs may tend to focus inward and not communicate the connection to social justice outwardly—a problem that can be solved in part through a more overt communication of how programs infuse and connect social justice in their programs and curriculum.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Amanda Aykanian

Amanda Aykanian (she/her/hers) is an assistant professor at the University of Texas at Arlington School of Social Work. Her research primarily centers on homeless services, homeless service systems, and how social work programs teach students about homelessness. She is also the co-editor of the social work textbook, Homelessness Prevention and Intervention in Social Work: Policies, Programs, and Practices.

Brittanie Atteberry-Ash

Brittanie Atteberry Ash (she/her/hers) is an assistant professor at the University of Texas at Arlington School of Social Work. She conducts research with and within LGBTQ+ communities to identify strategies and opportunities that best support and build inclusive and affirming environments. She also focuses on promoting social justice and inclusion within the social work classroom and works to identify approaches for educators to more fully integrate a critical social justice lens into pedagogy.

Ricka O. Mammah

Ricka Olga Mammah, LMSW, MBA, (she/her/hers) is a 2nd year doctoral student in the School of Social Work at the University of Texas at Arlington. Her research primarily centers on mental healthcare for minorities, intimate partner violence, multicultural issues in social work, and culturally sensitive practices.

Jessica R. Williams

Jessica Williams (she/her/hers) is a doctoral student in the School of Social Work at the University of Texas at Arlington. Her research is focused on structural violence, the criminal justice system, macro social work education, and social action for social justice.