From the Editor—Ethics, Power, and Professionalism in the Academy

As social workers, we are keenly aware of the influence of power on relationships, or at least we should be. Within the academy, there are various levels of hierarchy and power dynamics that are always at play. Some explicit positional power differences include student and professor, assistant untenured professor and tenured full professor, dean/chair/administrator and faculty member, adjunct contingent faculty member and full-time tenure track faculty member, postdoctoral researcher and supervisor, among many others. As social work educators, how we use and model our use of power—at whatever level within this hierarchy—sends a powerful message to those we teach as well as those within our professional environment. This power intersects with societal discrimination through the -isms of racism, sexism, ableism, and ageism (among others) within academic settings. Therefore, two individuals with similar achievements at the highest ranks in the academy at the same institution can differ with regard to the power they hold, the salary they make, and the range of acceptable (or expected) behavior based on gender, race, and ethnicity. Can you imagine a White male with a similar record of achievements facing what Nikole Hannah-Jones recently experienced at the University of North Carolina? She shared the obvious: “It’s pretty clear that my tenure was not taken up because of political opposition, because of discriminatory views against my viewpoint, and, I believe, [because of] my race and gender” (Aratani, 2021, para. 8). The Chair on Netflix offers another illustration of the intersection between university hierarchy and the -isms through the experiences of Ji-Yoon Kim, the first woman of color serving as department chair, the older woman faculty member moved to the basement of the university gym in an effort to force her to retire, and the younger White male faculty member who gets away with far more than anyone else. Sadly, this show offers a realistic parody of these common occurrences within our academic institutions.

The number and intersection of -isms shrinks one’s box of acceptable or expected behaviors for individuals within the academic setting with every additional -ism, while those without these constraining boxes have much more freedom and power. We must realize the strain that comes with staying within these boxes. As a woman, for example, my box tells me that I am expected to be pleasant, that I cannot be too assertive, and that I have to very careful asking for what I want. Otherwise, I may not be perceived as collegial. In one situation, I had an offer of academic employment rescinded because I tried to negotiate my salary. This is common practice for most men, who routinely have higher salaries because they negotiate. I guess I stepped outside my box? As someone who has been a competitive athlete my whole life, learning to step back and be careful in all things academic has been awfully constraining. It would be so much easier to be a man. At the same time, I know that I am much more privileged than my women colleagues of color who must also struggle with an even smaller box constrained by both sexism and being Black, Asian, or Latina/x in the mostly White space of academia. They get asked to join just about every search committee, or any other committee or effort that needs more diversity, and as a woman it is hard to say no because many people do not accept no when you say it. Yet we rarely acknowledge the additional time and labor this takes, and it is seldom properly acknowledged or rewarded. If we want everyone around us to flourish and be their best authentic self, those with no box or larger boxes—especially those higher in the academic hierarchy—need to create an environment where this is possible.

As someone who has recently reached the top of the academic hierarchy—I am grateful (and privileged) to be a tenured, full professor—I have reflected on the abuses of power I have witnessed over my career, realizing that I am now in a better position to change them. I was drawn to social work because our profession values correcting the misuse of power, with a focus on fighting oppression and empowering others. While life and academia are not always fair, it certainly should not be discriminatory or abusive, and bullying should not be tolerated. We are called into a profession that is focused on improving the well-being of people, and this is counter to that. We are required to engage in critical self-reflection that demonstrates personal awareness and cultural humility, and to ensure our personal issues and impairment do not affect our work, and that our educational institutions do the same (Baskey, 2021). It is not acceptable, ethical, or professional to misuse our power by bullying, abusing, harassing, or discriminating against others with whom we work or who work for us. A simple guideline is the Golden Rule—to treat others the way you would want to be treated, not necessarily the way you were treated. It is time to stop the cycle.

As social work educators, we must increase our collective awareness of the abuses of power within the academic hierarchy and the ways they intersect with structural issues of racism, sexism, and other -isms. We must seek to create and maintain a work environment that does not discriminate or oppress others, and that respects and values the dignity, worth, and beautiful diversity of others no matter one’s position within the hierarchy. Those at the top of the academic hierarchy must expect and model ethical and professional behavior, the responsible use of power, and speak out when bullying, discrimination, or abuses of power occur. As social workers, we are trained to understand power and oppression, increase our awareness of our own power in relation to others, to fight oppression, and to challenge social injustice. We are training students to do the same. And our students are watching us.

Areas of publication interest for 2022

Happy New Year! The last 2 years have been long for all of us. I am hopeful that 2022 will be better. Please let it be better! As we move into the new year, I would like to highlight some areas of interest for publication in 2022. First, let me start by thanking our authors for so many insightful and important manuscripts focused on the COVID-19 pandemic. We will continue to review these; however, given we have published a special issue and several additional articles focused on the pandemic, any manuscripts considered for acceptance must be especially innovative or have very strong methodology for consideration.

As always, we are especially interested in receiving systematic or scoping reviews of the literature that will inform the teaching of social work education. High-quality quantitative studies—with control groups— testing the effectiveness of social work education approaches are also of particular interest so that we can better answer the question of what works. Another area of keen interest includes innovative ideas, novel approaches, or teaching methods that are antiracist, anti-oppressive, and inclusive across social work curricula. We also have an updated National Association of Social Work Code of Ethics, and will have a new Council on Social Work Education Policy and Accreditation Standards adopted in 2022. We welcome ideas on how to integrate these changes into social work education. If you have a manuscript idea and would like to know if it is a good fit, please do not hesitate to reach out to me.

Introduction to the issue

We have an exciting first issue for 2022! It begins with an invited editorial from Rubin that offers his perspective on combating racist police violence in ways that will be politically more successful than the current abolitionist approach some in our field are advocating for in “Combatting Racist Police Violence in a Politically Savvy Way.” This editorial continues this important discourse in our field, which the Joural of Social Work Education welcomes!

The first full-length article is an invited article led by Mogro-Wilson and Negi titled “Reflections From Academic Mothers of Young Children on Social Work Research and Education.” This article was invited after we, as the editors of the Special Issue on Teaching, Field Instruction, and Administration in the Time of Pandemic or Natural Disaster, noted an important omission in the special issue focused on identifying and understanding the additional burden faced by caregivers during the pandemic—specifically, academic mothers of young children. Trends during the COVID-19 pandemic have shown women dropping out of the workforce in large numbers, as well as fewer women publishing compared to men (Krukowski et al., 2021; Nelson & Tucker, 2021; Viglione, 2020). These trends are likely to affect women with young children in social work academic settings now and in the future, and it is important that we recognize and honor the many responsibilities balanced during this time to ensure they are addressed with sensitivity and fairness. I am deeply grateful to Cristina Mogro-Wilson and Nalini Negi (both members of our editorial board) for leading what I believe will be a high-effect article from an esteemed group of social work academic mothers that includes (in alphabetic order) Chiara Acquati, Charlotte Bright, Doris F. Chang, Trenette Clark Goings, Jennifer C. Greenfield, Maria Gurrola, Tamara Hicks, Alysse Loomis, Rupal Parekh, Jessica Strolin-Goltzman, Miriam G. Valdovinos, Quenette L. Walton, and Liliane Windsor. When I read this submission, it was very powerful. I hope you find it as powerful as I do, and that it leads to some important, meaningful changes. I am profoundly grateful to all of these women for their vulnerability, as well as their willingness to devote their limited, valuable time to share their experiences and observations during this pandemic. This impressive and accomplished group of women, representing various identities and circumstances, generously offer an intersectional lens for better understanding racial/gender disparities in academic settings before and during the twin pandemics of COVID-19 and racial injustice. This article culminates with a thoughtful list of practical, actionable recommendations. I hope social work academic units take these recommendations to heart. If anything, social work, given our focus on social justice, should be leading such efforts in the academy. Please look for opportunities to connect with the lead authors through special interest groups and roundtables at the Society for Social Work and Research and Council on Social Work Education conferences.

Simon, Boyd, and Subica share their conceptualization, definition, and approaches to teaching intersectionality in social work education to prepare more effective social work practitioners in “Refocusing Intersectionality in Social Work Education: Creating a Brave Space to Discuss Oppression and Privilege.” Tajima, Song, Meyers, and Maglalang, in “Measuring Social Work Competencies: Comparing Field Instructor, Class Instructor, and Student Self-Assessment Competency Ratings,” report on data from a large, full-time social work program to examine consistency across three measures of student competency—field instructor ratings, classroom ratings, and student self-assessment. They note that, given some discrepancy, there is a need to further understand and assess the validity of competency measures used. Next, Pandya describes the results of a study of assessing the effect of an online meditation program on building geriatric social work competencies and resilience among postgraduate social work students in “Online Meditation Program Builds Resilience and Competencies Among Social Work Students Working With Older Adults.” Holley, Charles, Kondrat, and Walter-McCabe then report on an online survey of deans and directors of Bachelor of Social Work and Master of Social Work (MSW) coordinators in programs accredited by the Council on Social Work Education that assesses gatekeeping experiences with students who have mental health conditions in “Supports and Gatekeeping: Experiences of Schools of Social Work With Students With Mental Health Conditions.” Findings have important implications for policies consistent with social work’s social justice mandate, federal laws, and gatekeeping responsibilities within the profession.

Choate, St-Denis, and MacLaurin, in “At the Beginning of the Curve: Social Work and Indigenous Content,” report on a project using focus groups to assess social work faculty’s perceptions about achieving decolonization of social work structures and processes. Findings provide useful guidance for social work programs in nations with colonizing histories.

In “An Assessment of the Need for Courtroom Training in Social Work Education,” McCabe reports on a study of MSW students’ preparedness to interact with a court system as a part of practice. Findings are shared and important implications for incorporating court competencies into the MSW curriculum are discussed.

Next, Kourgiantakis, Sewell, McNeil, Lee, Logan, Kuehl, McCormick, Adamson, and Kirvan provide a scoping in “Social Work Education and Training in Mental Health, Addictions, and Suicide: A Scoping Review.” The article presents the findings of this review, as well as important implications for best practices in social work education, as well as future research. In “Creating Global Scholars: Experiential Learning and Reflection Transform an International Conference Into Short-Term Study Abroad,” McPherson, Jennings-McGarity, Arnold, Littleton, and Lee report qualitative findings from the assessment of the effect of a study abroad program for social work doctoral students to an international conference in Zagreb, Croatia. Implications for future research on short-term study abroad programs, with attention to the need for global engagement, for graduate students is discussed. Ganson, Gould, and Holcomb report on a phenomenological study of male social work students’ experiences in “Exploring the Experiences of Male MSW Students in the Social Work Learning Environment.” Findings have important implications for social work educators.

This issue is rounded out with four teaching notes. Timbers provides a brief synthesis of research on clinical practice with transgender and gender diverse (TGD) persons and describes TGD-specific counseling strategies from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and the Association for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues in Counseling and discusses the potential overlap and teaching modules aligned with social work competencies in “Considering Competencies for Social Work Practice and Research With Transgender and Gender Diverse Individuals.” Next, Chalise, Erickson, and Lee describe an interdisciplinary, environmental justice social work course and other recommendations for teaching environmental justice in “Handmaidens to Environmentalists? Claiming Social Work’s Expertise in Environmental Justice.” Perron, Victor, Hiltz, and Ryan propose that a data science framework may be beneficial for preparing social work students to address the needs organizations have when using data for data-driven decision making in “Data Science in the MSW Curriculum: Innovating Training in Statistics and Research Methods.” They describe this approach, as well as four examples of MSW student projects that are based on this framework. Finally, Kingson, Alford, Kerr, Berner, Gillespie, Mohn, Ryan, and Simmons describe Syracuse University’s unique approach to Legislative Policy Day in “Illuminating Policy Practice Close to Home: The Syracuse University Experience.”

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.