From the Editor—Reflecting on 2020: Science, Values, and Politics

As we reflect on 2020, there are many lessons to glean from the COVID-19 pandemic. Most recently, I have been reflecting on the intricate and often blurred relationships between science, values, and politics within our society and how they have influenced our response to this pandemic. It has been fascinating and often horrifying to witness how scientific public health facts have been misinterpreted, disregarded, or spun to fit political agendas. Our societal values have been tested as we have watched the pandemic disproportionately impact people of color, especially those who are economically vulnerable. When compared to White Americans, American Indian, Alaska Native, non-Hispanic persons are 2.6 times more likely to die from COVID-19, while Black or African Americans and Hispanic or Latinx persons are 2.8 times more likely to die (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2020). At the point this is being written, COVID-19 is the leading cause of death in 2020 after losing more than 333,000 U.S. lives (CDC, 2020). Deaths in the United States have now surpassed the number of deaths from World War II, as daily deaths are comparable to those we lost on September 11, 2001 (2,977). Despite these tragic losses, much of our country remains apathetic to these losses and continues to hold disparate values (and “facts”), disagreeing about the importance of efforts to mitigate loss of life when considering economic interests or “personal freedom.” While this struggle has been frustrating for most and, very sadly, deadly for others, we must learn from this historic tragedy so that we do not repeat the same mistakes. Within social work education and practice, we have a unique opportunity to reflect on this pandemic and sharpen our own approach toward the integration of science, values, and politics and how they inform how and what we do to achieve social change that improves the lives of vulnerable populations.

Science and research represent an important cornerstone of our profession. In 1915, Abraham Flexner (2001) proposed that an independent profession must have a shared professional body of research and knowledge. Specifically, he stated:

Now when social work becomes more thoroughly professional in character and scientific in method, it will be perceived that vigor is not synonymous with intelligence. Moreover, vigor cannot succeed without intelligence. The battles social work wages will not be won by phrases which too often serve as a substitute for experience and knowledge, but by trench warfare carried on by men and women who have learned every inch of the ground over which they must fight. (p. 164)

While we have, in response to this critique, established ourselves as a distinct, well-defined profession with clear educational competencies and a growing social work research and theoretical base, I am not sure we have fully arrived. Do our social work graduates embody both vigor and scientific literacy? Do they know “every inch of the ground over which they must fight,” and if not, do they know how to continue educating themselves based on the best available research in our field? Are we offering ample opportunities to practice the important skills of research appraisal and critical thinking so that our students can advocate effectively for research-supported policy or integrate research when making practice decisions? Are we adequately preparing our students to achieve social justice and improve the lives of society’s most vulnerable if we have not? We cannot be all vigor without the rigor. As the saying goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” and good intentions are not good enough. What will we, as a profession that values social justice, do to effectively reduce the health, racial, and economic disparities laid bare in our society during COVID-19? How will our values and scientific knowledge base guide us in making these important systemic, policy, and practice changes?

The year 2020 has provided important lessons for social work, as it has illustrated the critical importance of scientific literacy, critical thinking, and the ability to identify valid sources of information as our lives and the lives of those around us depended on this during the COVID-19 pandemic. The White House administration under President Trump led the pandemic response with political self-interest (specifically the 2020 presidential election) and economic values as a priority over public health, consistently minimizing the pandemic and spreading misinformation. The clash of this response with public health messaging has led to mass public confusion and political tribalism. More than ever, there is a need to rest, reflect, and learn how to counter authoritarian populist messaging based on alternative facts that are dangerous and oppressive for the most vulnerable in our society. Given our professional commitment to our shared values, ethics, and advocacy and practice based on research and scientific principles, the U.S. response to both mask wearing and vaccines to mitigate COVID-19 offers valuable lessons and implications for our profession and social work education.

At the start of the pandemic, the initial public guidance regarding mask wearing indicated masks were not necessary and must be prioritized for medical professionals working on the front lines. This decision was made early on, as mask wearing was not deemed necessary due to the belief that there would be adequate testing and a lower prevalence of COVID-19 in the United States, and not yet understanding there could be asymptomatic transmission (Bai, 2020). However, within a month, this guidance changed, and cloth masks were recommended for everyone. This introduced the first challenge in society, as scores of people were unwilling to adopt mask wearing, repeatedly citing the original CDC recommendation not to wear masks and sharing older cherry-picked studies with other viruses that suggested a lower efficacy of cloth masks. Scientific literacy, however, requires the ability to recognize and change what we do based on emerging evidence, as all knowledge is provisional and subject to disconfirming evidence. However, many United States citizens did not recognize this emerging evidence and actively protested mask wearing. The decision not to wear masks may have been based on one or a combination of the following—scientific illiteracy, a strong need to confirm a political bias, political tribalism, and a distrust or dislike of experts. Instead of following scientific advice, non-mask wearers consumed and spread misinformation or conspiracy theories, suggesting masks could make you sick or increase your chances of getting COVID-19; that COVID-19 was being overreported by doctors; that it was no more deadly than the flu; or even that Bill Gates was behind some big plan that caused COVID-19. It is concerning to see the ways in which large proportions of our society have clung to far-fetched conspiracy theories and pseudoscience by basing claims resisting the wearing of masks based on politically motivated authority, a lack of openness to disconfirming evidence, and one’s own personal freedom. It is also notable that some individuals have differing values when it comes to valuing the lives and safety of others; for example, when Lt. Governor Dan Patrick of Texas shared the following on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Show: “No one reached out to me and said, ‘As a senior citizen, are you willing to take a chance on your survival in exchange for keeping the America that all America loves for your children and grandchildren?’” But if they had? “If that is the exchange, I’m all in,” Patrick said. Of course, Dan Patrick is also much more able to protect himself from the virus than older adults in nursing homes and multigenerational homes due to his own resources. Almost a year later, even though mask wearing in public places has increased, the conspiracy theories, misinformation, and resistance toward mask wearing continues and perhaps represents one explanation for why the United States leads the world in COVID-19 cases and deaths (Johns Hopkins University & Medicine, 2020).

The COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated the ways in which we must be careful with claims made based on authority. For example, repeated claims made by President Trump and “America’s frontline doctors” that hydroxychloroquine was effective for treating COVID-19, despite the fact that randomized controlled trials did not support its effectiveness and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration cautioned against its use given a lack of evidence for its efficacy and harmful side effects. Even Trump’s own private doctors did not use hydroxychloroquine when he was being treated for COVID-19. Recent research, however, has indicated Trump’s 11 tweets and 65 mentions of unverified treatments for COVID-19 in White House briefings, including his preventative use of hydroxychloroquine, resulted in an impression reach 300% above his average, and that purchases of medicine substitutes such as hydroxychloroquine increased by 200% on Amazon (Niburski & Niburski, 2020). This is almost as concerning as the ways in which the Trump administration has influenced the public health messaging from the CDC and silenced scientists during a deadly pandemic (Vigilione, 2020). On the other hand, we have also been able to observe the benefits of not mixing politics and science by watching Dr. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health. He has not shared his political views, and indicated that it is quite challenging to get a single public health message out when “messages get thrown into political buckets” (The Daily Show, September 21, 2020). This raises important questions regarding the ways in which social work maintains scientific objectivity while crafting political and policy messages for all political buckets.

As a social work educator that teaches both research methods and practice, these very public displays of scientific illiteracy and influences of authority on science have further emboldened my commitment to ensuring that every social work student leaving my class is scientifically literate. Specifically, I will continue to emphasize (and perhaps reemphasize) the understanding that science is always evolving and changing; prior beliefs and practices can and have been disconfirmed through such emerging evidence; we must stay up on the most recent, relevant research; research is to be understood in the context of all evidence instead of cherry picking a study that supports preconceived biases; and to learn to be comfortable with the uncertainty of evidence. How many of our social work graduates, like those who resisted wearing masks, are stubbornly ignoring the research evidence across all levels of social work practice? Likewise, are we, as social work educators, obstinately teaching the same things in the same way despite research suggesting other approaches are more effective? As we have observed public health officials demonstrate during the pandemic, we must also train ourselves and our students to think critically in a flexible and agile manner. More than ever, students must be equipped to identify and consume valid, research-supported sources of information and differentiate these sources from those that rely on pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, or authority (political, practice, or otherwise). Students must also become more uncomfortable with the uncertainty of research evidence, learning to consume conflicting research studies, pursue meta-analyses or systematic reviews, and use critical thinking to go with practice approaches that integrate the best available evidence, are feasible in the practice setting, and consider the client’s or target population’s unique preferences and characteristics. Using the analogy of a mask, we all had to weigh the evidence of the most protective masks along with the breathability and comfort of the masks we have decided to wear during the pandemic. This is no different than what we do as social workers when selecting an approach that has the best chance of working and promoting engagement in the helping process.

Science scored a big win as COVID-19 vaccines were developed in less than a year, and 2021 is looking much brighter. These vaccines have demonstrated efficacy and safety. This is really amazing, as vaccines have historically taken at least four years to develop (Ball, 2020). Fortunately, we have had the benefits of building off of prior science (both the developments of prior vaccines and proof of concept), worldwide buy-in to fund and accelerate this science, and the simultaneous worldwide brain power of multiple teams of scientists working together tirelessly to develop a societal solution to this pandemic (Ball, 2020). We also removed the bureaucratic red tape. Unfortunately, the emergency of the vaccine has also been met with public fear and skepticism about the vaccine given how quickly it was developed. It certainly did not help that President Trump initially promised that a vaccine would be disseminated in October before the election was over. The possibility that the Trump administration could be pressuring vaccine scientists was concerning, especially as there had been evidence that the administration had been influencing reports and messaging from the CDC. It was a relief and highly necessary when leading scientists—both developers of the vaccine and those who were not—came out publicly to clarify the vaccine would be ready when science indicates it is sufficiently safe and efficacious, not when it is politically convenient. However, these conflicting messages only served to create more confusion and distrust of the vaccine.

The emergence of the COVID-19 vaccine also demonstrates what can be done when there are large amounts of funding for societal priorities. It is easy to see how this major financial investment in COVID-19 vaccine research was broadly supported, as it affected all of us. While other lines of research in the social sciences may never reach this broad level of financial support, it does raise the question of how we can better communicate the value of the social work profession and our research more broadly to increase funding that decreases the burden of social work student debt and increases the quality of our research. Can we improve our messaging in ways that show how social work benefits everyone in our society and get broader buy-in? Now seems to be the time, with President Joe Biden appointing social worker Jared Bernstein to his Council of Economic Advisors and his ongoing verbal support of the social work profession, and the inclusion of five social workers in our upcoming U.S. Congress (Hymans, Coffey, & McClain, 2020). However, as we enter into the political arena, we will clearly continue to need to wrestle with who we are as a profession, and what kinds of compromise, if any, we are willing to make based on our social work values when it comes to working with various societal systems (e.g., criminal justice, child welfare). And, again, how can we ensure maintaining our professional values, as well as scientific integrity and objectivity as a profession as we pursue political and policy change?

Now that science has offered us a vaccine or a solution to the COVID-19 pandemic, we have difficult moral decisions to make with regard to disseminating this vaccine based on societal values. It would not be surprising if politics also influences this process, with leadership in each state deciding how to prioritize vaccine dissemination. Should we first distribute them to communities of color disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 infection and deaths? If we target this group first, how do we first earn the trust of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color after years of discrimination in medical settings, including the Tuskegee experiment? Should we prioritize medical professionals on the front line? What about the janitorial staff in the hospitals? Do they go to essential workers? Or those with comorbid conditions? Do they go to the elderly over 75 who are at highest risk of dying from COVID-19, but who are also largely White and not on the front lines? Or do we focus on those in jails, prisons, or nursing homes who have also been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19? Will we allow rich donors to organizations disseminating the vaccine to benefit by getting one of the first vaccines? While science gives us the prevalence of deaths and infections across these groups to inform next steps with regard to need, it does not answer these important moral questions. As social workers, would we all agree on how the vaccine should be distributed? What is our professional response to the tremendous economic, racial, and health disparities laid bare by COVID-19, and what is our responsibility to make concrete changes that minimize another crisis such as this in the future? Discourse must continue and we will need to tackle these challenging yet exciting opportunities to move the needle toward a more socially and racially just society, while improving the lives of marginalized and underserved populations. As we do this, social work must maintain its scientific integrity, use our existing knowledge base, gain clarity and commitment to our shared values, and be clear-eyed and strategic, having learned “every inch of the ground over which they must fight” (Flexner, 2001, p. 164) as we enter the political arena.

I would like to conclude this editorial by wishing all of our readers, authors, reviewers, and editorial staff a Happy New Year! May 2021 be a year of healing and renewal. The Journal of Social Work Education (JSWE) is currently accepting applications for new reviewers. If you are interested and fit the following description (https://www.cswe.org/Publications-and-multimedia/Journal-of-Social-Work-Education/Reviewing-Articles-for-JSWE), please send your curriculum vitae to [email protected]. Reviewers for JSWE no longer have to be Council on Social Work Education members.

In this issue

This first issue of JSWE 2021 begins with five articles focused on teaching power, privilege, oppression, and cultural humility in social work education. In “Walk the Talk of Power, Privilege, and Oppression: A Template Analysis,” Atteberry-Ash, Nicotera, and Gonzales describe a framework for assessing power, privilege, and oppression learning in social work education using course assignments. In “Intercultural Humility in Social Work Education,” Bibus and Koh provide a conceptual definition of intercultural humility with five interrelated features and connect them to the Educational Policies and Accreditation Standards (EPAS) and social work ethics. Sloane and Petra report on a narrative analysis of the connection of religion/spirituality, implicit bias, early experiences with empathy and advocacy, and cultural humility in undergraduate social work student papers in “Modeling Cultural Humility: Listening to Students’ Stories of Religious Identity.” In “Reclaiming the Elder Role of Educator in Higher Education for Alaska Native Elders,” Gifford and McEachern report on a qualitative study of six elders’ experiences serving as members of a university instructor team for a Rural Human Services university program. McPherson, Villarreal-Otálora, and Kobe report on the results of a quantitative survey of undergraduate social work students’ knowledge regarding immigration-based educational discrimination and understanding of social work ethics within this context in “Injustice in Their Midst: Social Work Students’ Awareness of Immigration-Based Discrimination in Higher Education.”

In “Studying Human Trafficking in Thailand Increases EPAS Competencies and Compels Action at Home,” Willis, Wick, Bykowski, Doran, Li, and Tran report on a qualitative study with students of color who participated in a delegation exploring human trafficking in Thailand through a reverse mission program. Keesler reports on a quantitative study of graduate social work students concerning the influence of various attributes on student responses to people with disabilities in “Understanding Emergent Social Workers’ Experiences and Attitudes Toward People with Psychiatric, Physical, and Developmental Disabilities.”

McClendon, Lane, and Flowers share the findings of a survey of 243 social work faculty concerning their views of faculty-to-faculty incivility in “Faculty-to-Faculty Incivility in Social Work Education.” In “Implementation Challenges of SBIRT in Social Work Education and Practice: Perspectives of Students, Field Instructors, and Faculty,” Ting, Emery, and Sacco describe a qualitative study of training sustainability and implementation after training in Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT). Mapp and Boutté-Queen then report on a qualitative study of the preparation of BSW program directors and needs for future training in “The Role of the Baccalaureate Social Work Program Director: A Qualitative Understanding.”

The next section of articles focuses on PhD education. Woo, Evans, Wang, and Pitt-Catsouphes present on a qualitative study of the experiences of doctoral students in online or hybrid courses in “Online and Hybrid Education in a Social Work PhD Program.” Next, Lightfoot, Franklin, and Beltran describe the academic search process for the social work job market in “Preparing for the Academic Job Market: A Guide for Social Work Doctoral Students and Their Mentors.” This is followed by a research note from Lightfoot and Zheng that examined open social work tenure-track positions and doctoral candidates’ experiences on the academic job market in 2017–2018 in “A Snapshot of the Tightening Academic Job Market for Social Work Doctoral Students.”

This first issue of 2021 concludes with five teaching notes. Belfiore, Hoover, Jenkins, and Ting describe the integration of the Seeing White podcast within a one-semester course and use mixed methods to report on their outcomes in “Exploring Podcast-Facilitated Course Work on Racism.” Next, Alvarez-Hernandez proposes the use of a proposed tool, the Intersectionality Analysis Cluster, to engage students in activities focused on intersectionality in “Teaching Intersectionality Across the Social Work Curriculum Using the Intersectionality Analysis Cluster.” In “Strategies for Enhancing Writing Among First-Generation Social Work Students: Reflections on the Use of Peer Writing Mentors,” Capous-Desyllas, Bromfield, Nava, and Barnes describe the implementation and lessons learned from a project using peer writing mentors over a 2-year period. Sanders, in “Trauma-Informed Teaching in Social Work Education,” provides further discussion, application, and research on trauma-informed educational practices in social work and their application to social work education. Finally, Waring describes an innovative approach to teaching social work statistics in “The Stats Requirement: Statistical Thinking as Social Work.”