Discussions
skygirl
Reading4.docxTop of Form
Equity vs. Invisibility: Sexual Orientation Issues in Social Work Ethics and Curricula Standards.
This content may contain URLs/links that would redirect you to a non-EBSCO site. EBSCO does not endorse the accuracy or accessibility of these sites, nor of the content therein.
✖
Contents
1. Method
3. Canada
6. UK
9. USA
10. Code of ethics
12. Discussion
13. Conclusions
14. References
Full Text
The responsibility of the social work profession to be inclusive and equitable in its service provision is reviewed via policies relating to professional training regarding sexual orientation issues. A comparative review of Canada, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (USA) and international standards regarding sexual orientation issues in social work codes of ethics and curricula standards was undertaken. A consistency exists in the USA between its ethics code and curriculum standards further backed by a mandated approach, but it is weak in the area of ethically principled practice skills. Both Canada and the UK are less consistent and comprehensive and lack a mandated approach. The results speak to where consistencies exist and where they need to be established in order to develop an infrastructure that properly trains social workers in cultural competency for these populations.
Keywords: Social Work Ethics; Curricula Standards; Sexual Orientation; Canada; UK; USA
A crucial backdrop to the training of social workers, which curricula need to be based on, is social work ethics (Mulé, [37]). As much as ethics should provide a solid foundational base to the training of aspiring social workers, ethics are also fluid in order to incorporate relevant developing sensitivities. The literature acknowledges this with regard to the development of the code of ethics in the USA. Reamer ([45]) traces the historical evolution of social work ethics there that progressed from periods of morality, values, ethical theory and decision‐making to ethical standards and risk management. Walz & Ritchie ([59]) argue for enriching these ethics by incorporating Gandhi's principles. With particular relevance to social work, this would mean seeking the truth through service to others, individual self‐development, nonviolent social action, and material simplicity. As practitioners, social workers are called upon to subscribe to the highest of moral and ethical standards, at all times. It is necessary that this include the right of client self‐determination and respect and support regardless of their sexual orientation (Logan et al., [34]; Wyers, [63]).
What of the social work profession's systemic responsibility with regard to education on sexual orientation issues that backs up ethical standards?
Sexual minority issues were found to be either marginalized or excluded in a number of studies that looked at social work curricula content (O'Neill, [41]; Stainton & Swift, [48]; Trotter & Gilchrist, [52]). Personal disclosures by lesbian and gay instructors may or may not facilitate a learning experience for social work students regarding lesbian and gay issues, inclusive of homophobia and heterosexism (Cain, [10]; Dolton, [22]), that may be influenced by time allotment to the issue.
The literature repeatedly points out that issues of homosexuality should not be compartmentalized to one portion of a 'human sexuality' program, single class lecture or chapter in a textbook. Time limitations can pose real problems in addressing the complicated issue of heterosexism on the part of social work students as experienced in a British diplo ma in social work course (Dolton, [22]). Thus, curriculum content needs to go beyond the recognition of sexual minority populations and focus also on knowledge development substantiated with relevant practice skills and policy issues (Newman et al., [40]; Razack, [44]; Trotter & Leech, [53]; Walker & Staton, [58]). Far more effective would be to have it integrated throughout a course study or program (Cain, [10]; DeCrescenzo, [20]; Ellis, [24]; Murphy, [18]; Rosser, [46]; Rothblum, [47]). Care must be taken to develop a curriculum that avoids the usage of outdated materials that view homosexuality in the context of crime, illness or sin. A heterosexist bias such as questioning the cause of homosexuality rather than the cause of sexual orientation in general is inappropriate. Inferences to abnormality and alluding to the question of a cure only serve to oppress sexual minority people (Baker, [ 5 ]; McNaron, [35]; Rothblum, [47]; Stevens & Hall, [49]).
Reducing the health and social service concerns of sexual minority communities to HIV/AIDS, as serious as this illness is, deprives students of the vast array of specified issues these communities face. Van Voorhis & Wagner ([56]) found a mere 1% of the literature in 12 social work journals constituted non‐HIV/AIDS issues for these populations during the decade 1988–97. A discussion of how ageism (Bayliss, [ 6 ]), race, ethnicity (Akerland & Cheung, [ 2 ]), sexism, sex‐role stereotyping, homophobia and heterosexism (Ellis, [24]; Pharr, [42]) all intersect would greatly benefit a curriculum. It is also important that a strengths perspective be imparted regarding minority identity development to counteract much of the deficit aspects that tend to be focused on (Akerland & Cheung, [ 2 ]) which is usually due to societal oppression of these populations.
Practicing social workers need to review their own homophobia and heterosexism as individuals and as professionals, regardless of their sexual orientation. Familiarization with the increasing amount of diverse lesbian, gay and bisexual research, literature and resources that exist can assist one in becoming better informed (Baker, [ 5 ]; Brown, [ 9 ]; DeCrescenzo, [20]; Morrow, [36]; Woodman, [62]). Social workers need to educate themselves and others on practice issues in working with lesbians, gays and bisexuals (Harrison & Dziegielewski, [29]). Therefore, the question of whether the profession systemically prepares its members during training via curriculum standards consistent with the profession's code of ethics is explored.
An anti‐oppression framework was utilized for this study conceptualizing health and social services as social justice issues that are based on values of nurturance and equity (Dyck, [23]; Warren, [61]). This research was based on Mullaly's 'structural social work theory' ([38]) in critically addressing systemic inequities between professional codes of ethics and social work curricula standards regarding lesbians, gays and bisexuals as an oppressed minority group. A gay liberationist perspective (Altman, [ 4 ]; Warner, [60]) is utilized regarding the lesbian, gay and bisexual communities in which the issues, needs and values of these communities are self‐defined and not necessarily within the framework of traditional heterosexual models. Also, the degree to which sexual orientation exists as discourse in social policy (Carabine, [14], [15], [16], [17]) is explored from the perspective of inclusions, omissions and the perpetuation of heteronormative structures in curricula standards, as well as the socio‐political context (Carabine, [16]; Logan & Kershaw, [33]; Logan, [32]; Logan et al., [34]) that encapsulates them in each of the countries researched.
This paper presents the results of one portion of a larger qualitative study that looked at the systemic interconnections of health, social services and social policy with specific regard to lesbian, gay and bisexual adult populations. Thus, 'sexual minorities' in this paper refers to lesbians, gays and bisexuals specifically and not necessarily other forms of sexuality or sexual identity. The portion presented herein features a comparative qualitative content analysis of the respective national social work curricula standards in Canada, the UK and the USA with respect to recognition of lesbians, gays and bisexuals and whether this parallels social work ethics and respective national human rights legislation.
Data collection for content analysis was carried out between April 2001 and March 2003 reviewing each of the respective countries' national professional associations regarding codes of ethics and national schools of social work accreditation bodies regarding standards. Further, how each of these countries compares to policies of international bodies such as the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) and the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) was also reviewed. Themes focused on inclusion of sexual orientation as protected ground in codes of ethics and sexual minorities as a recognized population in social work curricula standards.
The conceptualized philosophical perspective brought to this research is that of health and social services being issues of social justice; that the development and implementation of curricula standards be based on ethical codes (dignifying sexual orientation as a respected characteristic); and that the connection between curricula standards, knowledge development, practice and service provision be based on perspectives of equity (acknowledging various sexual orientations, recognition of the health care and social service issues and needs of these populations, and sensitivity in the provision of services to them).
The standard of analysis employed for this qualitative study was that of discourse analysis (van Dijk, [54], [55]), the emphasis here being a macro‐sociological approach utilizing a sociological perspective on discourse with some attention paid to socio‐linguistics. Grounded in critical theory (Fairclough, [25]) the discoursal themes addressed in the analysis include power, culture, discrimination, politics and systems. These analytical themes provide insight to current social work curricula standards and their relationship to the profession's codes of ethics, therein the parallels, intersections, (in)consistencies and gaps in the education system, and the degree to which social work students are prepared to provide knowledgeable and sensitized services to lesbians, gays and bisexuals in Canada, the UK and the USA.
The International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) in its International Declaration of Ethical Principles of Social Work, includes sexual orientation as a ground for which there should be no unfair discrimination (International Federation of Social Workers, [31]). The IFSW is currently involved in a joint initiative with the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW), in drafting Global Qualifying Standards for Social Work Education and Training (IASSW & IFSW, [30]). This document's proposed paradigm of the profession addresses theoretical/epistemological frameworks seen as important in informing core curricula featuring respect for diversity inclusive of sexual orientation. This is also included in standards with regard to cultural and ethnic diversity and gender inclusiveness. This initiative is an attempt to create an empowering document using non‐prescriptive language featuring global standards that schools of social work can aspire to, towards developing sophisticated levels of education and training in social work. Although neither IASSW nor IFSW would play monitoring, control or accreditation roles, but rather be supportive and facilitative, systemically they are setting out inclusive anti‐discriminatory guidelines. Apart from these international bodies, the findings of each of the three countries researched for this study are provided with regard to whether a link exists between their respective codes of ethics and curricula standards for social work study, and to what extent.
Table 1 Comparative Subjects
|
Subjects |
Professional bodies |
Codes of ethics |
Curricula accreditation bodies |
|
Canada |
Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW) |
Social Work Code of Ethics (CASW, 1994) |
Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work (CASSW) |
|
United Kingdom (UK) |
British Association of Social Workers (BASW) |
The Code of Ethics for Social Workers (BASW, 2002) |
Department of Health (DOH); Training Organisation for the Personal Social Services (TOPSS); General Social Care Council (GSCC); Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) |
|
United States of America (USA) |
National Association of Social Workers (NASW) |
Code of Ethics (NASW, 1999) |
Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) |
|
International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) |
International Body |
International Declaration of Ethical Principles of Social Work (IFSW, 1994) |
Draft: Global Qualifying Standards for Social Work Education and Training |
|
International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) |
International Body |
N/A |
Draft: Global Qualifying Standards for Social Work Education and Training |
|
Note: N/A: not applicable. |
|
|
|
Canada's inclusion of sexual orientation is prominently featured in the philosophy section of its Social Work Code of Ethics (Canadian Association of Social Workers, [13]). It is further footnoted that 'this obligation goes beyond grounds of discrimination stated in most Human Rights Legislation and therefore there is a greater professional obligation than that stated in provincial legislation' (Canadian Association of Social Workers, [13], p. 10). Under 'Limit on Private Practice', 'sexual orientation' is listed among other characteristics for which differential fee levels cannot be based and levied. Also pointed out is the profession's responsibility for social change through advocacy and equal distribution of resources, equal access with regard to resources, services and opportunities, and the promotion of social justice (Canadian Association of Social Workers, [13]).
The Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work (CASSW) accredits both undergraduate and graduate studies in that country. The CASSW lists 'sexual orientation' as one of the grounds for which discrimination is prohibited. Based on a philosophy of equity and ethics, upon further reading the document makes mention of specific targeted groups such as women, Aboriginal Peoples and Francophones. Numerous other minority groups are not afforded such inclusion such as lesbians, gays and bisexuals. The appendix on 'Standards for the Field Education Component of Programmes of Social Work Education' also includes 'sexual orientation' as protected grounds for the student doing a field placement. Another appendix proposing a 'Recommended Revision to CASSW Education Policy Statements Regarding Multicultural/Multiracial Social Work Education' includes 'sexual orientation', but for the most part uses the phrase 'ethnic, racial and cultural backgrounds/populations'. The definition of 'culture' in the glossary is a standard sociological one that lesbian, gay and bisexual communities could easily relate to and be encompassed in, but does the general public recognize these populations as 'cultural' in the absence of actually naming them?
Educational Policy Statements for Masters Degree Programmes (CASSW, [12]) similarly uses the phrase 'ethnic, cultural and racial diversity' throughout the document. Although diversity is defined to be inclusive of sexual orientation, prefacing it with the word racial has a restrictive effect on the scope intended. It goes on to state that these concepts will be taken into account in many aspects of the school including curriculum, but falls short of mandating it. Sexual orientation is included in a list of grounds for which there will be equal treatment and for which discrimination will be prohibited. The existence of racism must be acknowledged by schools, with regard to their field components, yet no other oppressions are named. Also, a short section is devoted to including the contribution of Aboriginal People to program development and in turn the response of the program to the needs of Aboriginal students and communities, whereas no other minority groups are targeted. Additionally, it points out that students are to perform in accordance with the social work code of ethics, which in effect is far more comprehensive than what these standards are requiring. Although Canadian standards encourage the study of oppression, nowhere does it require such study specific to sexual orientation as a subgroup (CASSW, [11]).
Under the principles of social justice in the UK's The Code of Ethics for Social Workers (British Association of Social Workers, [ 7 ]), sexual orientation is named as a ground by which a social worker is not to act out of prejudice against any individual or group. This same section calls for respect towards cultural identity and diversity as well as further diversity within cultural groups, but does not define any of these terms (BASW, [ 7 ]). Abstracted from this ethics code are 12 principles, one of which lists sexual orientation as a ground for which the social worker is neither to be prejudiced nor to tolerate it in others (BASW, [ 8 ]). Another calls for the 'promotion of ethnic and cultural diversity of services' but does not define the latter (BASW, [ 8 ], p. 1).
In the UK a series of organizations are now responsible for social work curriculum standards, replacing the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW), with the development of a degree qualification in the field. The prescribed curriculum for the social work degree is comprised of the Requirements for Social Work Training as stipulated by the Department of Health, the Training Organisation for the Personal Social Services' (TOPSS) National Occupational Standards for Social Work, the General Social Care Council's (GSCC) Codes of Conduct and Practice and the Quality Assurance Agency's (QAA) Benchmark Statement. The emphasis of social work education and training is on practice supported by academic learning (Department of Health, [21]; General Social Care Council, [27]). The GSCC's Accreditation of Universities to Grant Degrees in Social Work ([27]) document includes an equal opportunities policy statement that takes a generalized anti‐discrimination approach and names sexual orientation as an area in which students must gain knowledge and understanding, but falls short of listing it as a ground prohibiting discrimination. Included grounds are race, social class, age, disability, ill health, poverty or other difference, with the latter being undefined.
Although this applies to an English qualification, the GSCC also produced a set of Codes of Conduct and Practice (General Social Care Council, [28]) for social care workers and their employers that applies to all four countries in the UK. The standards are ambiguously written in that they call for social care workers and their employers to address discriminatory behavior and practice and to respect diversity, different cultures and values in the absence of any context or definition of these terms. Standards set out in the QAA's Social Policy and Administration and Social Work (Quality Assurance Agency, [43]) promote an anti‐oppression philosophy that calls attention to diversity, social justice, rights, inequalities, ethics and the need for social workers to be educated and sensitive to these concepts. Because no population groups are targeted such as lesbians, gays and bisexuals, who these concepts are directed at and how they would be implemented remains unexplained. It also incorporates a systemic approach in its standards (Quality Assurance Agency, [43]) which when combined with the concepts above, has the potential for effective social work interventions—provided that it is inclusive. Similar to the QAA report, TOPSS' National Occupational Standards for Social Workers (Training Organisation for the Personal Social Services, [50]) also uses broad terminology such as 'multicultural', 'equity', 'diversity' and 'culture' without targeting any specific populations. Thus, the picture painted by these newly drafted standards is ambiguous at best.
The USA refers to sexual orientation in four sections of its Code of Ethics (National Association of Social Workers, [39]). The section on 'discrimination' clearly includes sexual orientation as a ground by which the profession cannot discriminate. 'Cultural competence and social diversity', addresses social workers' ethical responsibility to clients. It points out that social workers should have an understanding, knowledge base and sensitivity to their clients' cultures and differences therein. This is inclusive of understanding the nature of social diversity and oppression of sexual orientation among others. 'Respect' addresses social workers' ethical responsibilities to colleagues. Finally, social workers are further urged to take 'social and political action' to prevent and eliminate domination, exploitation and discrimination regarding sexual orientation among other characteristics (NASW, [39]). Thus, by including it in four different sections of the code, the USA presents the most comprehensive perspectives of valuing sexual orientation in varying aspects of social work practice.
The Council on Social Work Education is the USA's accrediting body that also accredits both undergraduate and graduate studies. Its Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (Council on Social Work Education, [19]) establishes basic requirements in both curricular content and educational context. One of their stated purposes is to have practice developed and applied in the context of diverse cultures. 'Preparing social workers to practice without discrimination, with respect, and with knowledge and skills related to ... sexual orientation' (Council on Social Work Education, [19], p. 7). All social work programs are required to provide foundation content in a series of areas inclusive of diversity. From a practice‐focused approach to diversity, it goes on to provide a systemic approach to oppression and discrimination by looking at populations‐at‐risk and social and economic justice. All of this is informed by its comprehensive approach, inclusive of sexual orientation, to the application of diversity concepts in its standard on 'non‐discrimination and human diversity'. Thus, their policies require curricula content to include sexual orientation under diversity.
With both the IASSW and the IFSW currently in the process of developing global curricula standards as potential guidelines for nations to follow, the substance of the profession's curricula standards currently fall to individual countries. Even though Canada, the UK and the USA's codes of ethics include sexual orientation, consistency with regard to this issue in curriculum standards only appears to be in place in the USA.
Not only does the US mandate lead the world in ensuring the inclusion of sexual orientation content in the curriculum, this requirement simply does not exist in other disciplines (van Wormer et al., [57]). How the USA got to this place is worth noting. Trolander ([51]) speaks to the important role minority and female members of CSWE played in shifting its approach from equal opportunity to affirmative action. She also acknowledges the historical climate of federal affirmative action policies, funding initiatives and Supreme Court decisions that made for an environment of change towards equity in accreditation, student and faculty recruitment and curriculum. A backlash that took place in the late‐1970s and early‐1980s reminds us of the need for vigilance in protecting such standards and policies.
The CSWE's Curriculum Policy Statement mandating attention to broader human diversity has seen most of it focused on race and ethnicity. Very little attention has been paid to sexual orientation issues (Almeida & Devore, [ 3 ]). There is also criticism that sexual orientation's inclusion in the Code of Ethics (NASW, [39]) is positioned as a specific knowledge area and not a principle of ethical practice (Walker & Staton, [58]). Despite the requirement that sexual diversity be included in social work curricula, controversy continues as to whether conservative religious colleges be granted an exemption based on an argument of freedom of religion. Arguments against speak to compromised ethical standards and inherent contradictions in accrediting social work programs in a setting in which homosexuality is seen as a sin. Also, the underlying philosophy behind the current Bush administration's 'faith‐based initiative', clearly has the potential to undermine diversity issues based on sexual orientation. Yet despite such challenges, as it currently stands in the US, a consistency exists between their professional code of ethics and curriculum content that would better prepare those entering the field in the provision of knowledgeable, sensitive and ethical services to sexual minority populations.
Canada's CASSW offers some promising proposals to update curricula standards that would be inclusive of sexual orientation issues, particularly given the few areas of the current standards in which these issues are included and tend to focus on protecting sexual minority students rather than inclusion in curriculum content. Yet, even the proposed changes regarding the inclusion of sexual orientation are inconsistent and not nearly as emphasized as the targeted populations of women, Aboriginal Peoples and Francophones. Thus, should such proposals be approved as they currently stand, not only would it send a message to social work students and faculty that sexual orientation is not as important as gender, native status and identity based on language, but they would also inadequately address the issues affecting sexual minority populations. Ambiguous and restrictive terminology such as the use of 'culture' and 'racial diversity' do not adequately address the specificities of minority populations that are better served by actually naming them and further substantiating them with evidence‐based knowledge. Also, the proposals do not necessarily mandate the implementation of diversity issues in curricula content.
Unless these proposals are further specified, strengthened and made more comprehensive, the social work profession in Canada risks offering little improvement to the current situation. Without the proper knowledge base and practice guidelines regarding working with sexual minority populations, aspiring social workers may find themselves ill‐prepared in providing services to these populations and risk failing to abide by the code of ethics, not to mention offering a disservice to these populations.
At the time of this research study, the UK was just releasing a series of social work curricula standards, via a number of organizations in a complex structure of accountability for its new degree qualification. They include the Department of Health, the General Social Care Council (GSCC), the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) and the Training Organisation for the Personal Social Services (TOPSS). Of these only the GSCC names sexual orientation in its standards in the area of knowledge development and understanding, yet not in the areas of anti‐discrimination or practice skills. The GSCC has also, along with all other organizations, put forth documents in which the standards are worded in highly generalized language, leaving an enormous level of ambiguity as to whether or not sexual minority populations are recognized and/or acknowledged within terminology such as 'multicultural', 'diversity', 'culture' and 'inequalities'. Not only does the lack of clarity in the curriculum standards represent a major disconnect from the UK's The Code of Ethics for Social Workers (British Association of Social Workers, [ 7 ]), but the absence of definitions contributes to an ambiguity that risks the improper training of social workers to work with sexual minority communities. And even though social work students are expected to successfully complete the curriculum, as stipulated by the curriculum standards before attaining the degree, how prepared they will be given the lack of conceptual specificity is questionable. From a policy development perspective, these standards would need to be better aligned with the code of ethics in order to respect the social work values of diversity and equity.
Although the USA has a consistency between its code of ethics and its curriculum standards in social work backed up by a mandatory implementation process, it nevertheless requires a strengthening in ethically principled practice skills with these populations and not just the development of knowledge. The USA must also be vigilant. The current political climate does not lend itself to sensitivities towards diverse sexualities and thus does not guarantee the maintenance of this current approach. From a social justice perspective, the American social work profession is to be commended for prioritizing this issue in the absence of national civil rights protections for sexual minority populations in that country, displaying a professional systemic recognition of these populations in an unsupportive political climate.
There are apparent gaps in both Canada and the UK's standards for social work curricula on sexual orientation content, that may not adequately prepare social work students to abide by the code of ethics in working with these populations. Both of these countries provide professional ethical anti‐discrimination protection on the ground of sexual orientation, albeit not as comprehensively as the US, yet are patchy at best with regard to curricula content for these populations. The UK is at the beginning point of establishing a degree qualification in the profession that, for the most part, is currently positing sweeping generalizations regarding diversity and multiculturalism in curriculum standards, that in the absence of defined specificity, risks providing inadequate training to intervene with sexual minority populations. On a social justice level, the British social work profession finds itself in the absence of national human rights legislation that names sexual minorities and in the past direct ethical conflict with the repressive Section 28 of the Local Government Act (1988) (local authorities being prohibited from promoting or teaching about homosexuality) (Logan, [32]; Logan et al., [34]). Any past restricting effect Section 28 may have had on systemically including and mandating sexual minority content in curriculum should now be lifted based on its repeal in 2003 (365Gay.com, [ 1 ]).
Sexual orientation is included in Canadian human rights legislation and the social work profession's code of ethics and yet its current and proposed curriculum standards lack the comprehensiveness required to adequately address the issues of these populations and the accountability factor of mandating its inclusion. Part of this is due to its lack of emphasis on sexual orientation under the realm of multiculturalism. Broad based terminology, such as 'multiculturalism', if meant to be culturally pluralist needs to specifically define its components (Fellin, [26]; Walker & Staton, [58]) in Canada and the UK, in order to address current ambiguities and provide comprehensive training in cultural competence.
Thus, both Canada and the UK would be systemically creating a more consistent and equitable approach to ethical social work training if they adopted the American model with the additional focus of practice skills development. Canada would not necessarily have to face a harsh political climate, but the UK would have to stake out its professional ethical stance in the absence of national human rights legislation that names sexual minorities. Systemically, the discriminatory approach of highlighting some minority groups over others (Canada) or positing a sweeping approach to cultures without recognizing specificities (UK), undermines an equitable social work approach and contributes to sexual minorities being made invisible. What is risked if this inconsistency is not addressed is the perpetuation of the insidious undercurrent of heteronormativity permeating attempts at providing comprehensive and effective cultural competency training for future social workers.
Table 2 Inclusion of Sexual Orientation Issues
|
Sources |
National human rights legislation |
Ethics |
Curricula |
|||
|
Anti‐discriminatory |
Knowledge development |
Practice skills |
Mandatory inclusion |
|||
|
IFSW |
N/A |
✓ |
(✓) |
(✓) |
(✓) |
|
|
IASSW |
N/A |
✓ |
(✓) |
(✓) |
(✓) |
|
|
Canada |
✓ |
✓ |
✓ |
∼ |
|
|
|
UK |
|
✓ |
✓ |
∼ |
|
|
|
USA |
|
✓ |
✓ |
✓ |
|
✓ |
|
Notes: N/A: not applicable, ∼ ambiguity, (✓) draft. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ensuring that code of ethics and accredited curriculum standards are parallel on sexual orientation issues creates a consistency in the training of social workers and expectations of them as professionals in the field. The social worker benefits by having a more comprehensive knowledge base inclusive of readiness skills when practicing with sexual minority communities, and the sexual minority client benefits by having a more sensitized worker who will impart accessible and equitable services. The American model is a positive example by means of its mandated accountability regarding the inclusion of sexual orientation issues and its clear and strongly worded requirements, but needs to be more comprehensive by including practice training. Both the Canadian and the UK models display inconsistencies between professional ethical expectations and adequate training standards that would appropriately prepare social workers to engage in the provision of effective and relevant services to sexual minority populations.
From a macro‐sociological perspective, how does the social work profession justify the inconsistency between its code of ethics and curricula standards in the formal training of its members? How are aspiring social workers to provide appropriate services to sexual minority populations in the absence of relevant knowledge development, let alone practice skills? What is being communicated about the value of implementing curriculum standards by non‐mandated models?
Further study would need to look at the degree to which sexual orientation issues are covered in actual curricula at both the undergraduate and graduate studies levels in schools of social work in all three countries. Additional studies can follow the ability of the American social work profession to maintain its mandatory curriculum standards inclusive of sexual minorities in the face of politically challenging times; the impact of the new UK standards on actual curricula and preparedness of social workers; and whether Canada will ultimately adopt a more comprehensive set of standards, currently under review, with regard to sexual minorities. The latter two countries' commitment to equity and accountability can also be tested by whether they choose to implement their curricula standards via a mandated approach. Socio‐politically, this would be easier for Canada given its supportive social justice system than the UK with its uneven recognition of sexual minorities. Also, the development of global curricula standards on the part of IASSW and IFSW can be monitored for inclusion of sexual orientation issues.
1 365Gay.com. 11 July 2003. 'Section 28 finally dies' by Peter Moore. Available at: http://www.365gay.com/NewsContent/071103sectionScrapped.htm
2 Akerland, M. and Cheung, M.2000. 'Teaching beyond the deficit model: gay and lesbian issues among African Americans, Latinos and Asian Americans'. Journal of Social Work Education, 36(2): 279–293.
3 Almeida, R. and Devore, W.1997. "'Has the focus on multiculturalism resulted in inadequate attention to factors such as gender, social class, and sexual orientation?'". In Controversial Issues in Multiculturalism, Edited by: de Anda, D. 41–53. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
4 Altman, D.1971. Homosexual Oppression and Liberation, New York: Outerbridge & Deinstfrey.
5 Baker, J. A.1993. 'Is homophobia hazardous to lesbian and gay health?'. American Journal of Health Promotion, 7(4): 255–256, 262.
6 Bayliss, K.2000. 'Social work values, anti‐discriminatory practice and working with older lesbian service users'. Social Work Education, 19(1): 45–54.
7 British Association of Social Workers. 2002. The Code of Ethics for Social Workers. Available at: http://www.basw.co.uk/pages/info/ethics.htm
8 British Association of Social Workers. 2003. The 12 Principles of Social Work. Available at: http://www.basw.co.uk/pages/info/princ.htm, accessed 15 February 2003
9 Brown, H. C.1998. Social Work and Sexuality: Working with Lesbians and Gay Men, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Cain, R.1996. 'Heterosexism and self‐disclosure in the social work classroom'. Journal of Social Work Education, 32(1): 65–76.
Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work (CASSW). 2000. Board of Accreditation Manual. Available at: http://www.cassw‐acess.ca/index.htm ( http://www.cassw-acess.ca/index.htm )
Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work (CASSW). 2002. Accreditation Manual—Re‐structured and Re‐designed, Ottawa: CASSW.
Canadian Association of Social Workers. 1994. Social Work Code of Ethics, Ottawa: CASW.
Carabine, J.1995. "'Invisible sexualities: sexuality, politics and influencing social policy making'". In A Simple Matter of Justice, Edited by: Wilson, A. R. 91–109. London: Cassell.
Carabine, J.1996. "'Heterosexuality and social policy'". In Theorising Heterosexuality, Edited by: Richardson, D. 55–74. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Carabine, J.1998. "'New horizons? New insights? Postmodernising social policy and the case of sexuality'". In Postmodernity and the Fragmentation of Welfare, Edited by: Carter, J. 121–135. London: Routledge.
Carabine, J.2000. "'Constituting welfare subjects through poverty and sexuality'". In Rethinking Social Policy, Edited by: Lewis, G, Gewirtz, S and Clarke, J. London: Open University Press.
Cody Murphy, B.1991. 'Educating mental health professionals about gay and lesbian issues'. Journal of Homosexuality, 22(3–4): 229–246.
Council on Social Work Education. 2001. Educational Policy and Accreditation StandardsCouncil on Social Work Education, Inc
DeCrescenzo, T. A.1984. "'Homophobia: a study of the attitudes of mental health professionals toward homosexuality'". In With Compassion Toward Some: Homosexuality and Social Work in America, Edited by: Schoenberg, R. 115–136. New York: Harrington Park Press.
Department of Health. 23 May 2002. Reform of Social Work Education and Training. Available at: http://www.doh.gov.uk/swqualification/newrequirements.htm
Dolton, R.2002. 'Teaching anti‐oppressive practice on a diploma in social work course: lecturers' experiences, students' responses and ways forward'. Social Work Education, 21(1): 7–23.
Dyck, A. J.1994. Rethinking Rights and Responsibilities, Cleveland, OH: The Pilgrim Press.
Ellis, M.1985. 'Eliminating our heterosexist approach to sex education: a hope for the future'. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 11: 61–63.
Fairclough, N.1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language, Essex: Pearson Education.
Fellin, P.2000. 'Revisiting multiculturalism in social work'. Journal of Social Work Education, 36(2): 261–279.
General Social Care Council. May 2002a. Accreditation of Universities to Grant Degrees in Social Work, London: General Social Care Council.
General Social Care Council. September 2002b. Code of Practice for Social Care Workers and Code of Practice for Employers of Social Care Workers, London: General Social Care Council.
Harrison, D. F. and Dziegielewski, S. F.1992. "'Social work practice with gay men, lesbian women, and bisexual individuals'". In Cultural Diversity and Social Work Practice, Edited by: Harrison, D. F, Wodarski, J. S and Thyer, B. A. 135–155. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) & International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW). August 2002. Second Reviewed Discussion Document: Global Qualifying Standards for Social Work Education and Training. Available at: http://www.iassw.soton.ac.uk/en/GlobalQualifyingStandards/Globalstandardsaugust2002.pdf
International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW). 1994. International Declaration of Ethical Principles of Social Work. Available at: http://www.ifsw.org/index.html
Logan, J.2001. 'Sexuality, child care and social work education'. Social Work Education, 20(5): 563–575.
Logan, J. and Kershaw, S.1994. 'Heterosexism and social work education: the invisible challenge'. Social Work Education, 13(3): 61–80.
Logan, J., Kershaw, S., Karban, K., Mills, S., Trotter, J., Sinclair, M., Nutt, M. and Rostron, J.1996. Confronting Prejudice: Lesbian and Gay Issues in Social Work Education, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
McNaron, T.1989. "'Mapping a country: what lesbian students want'". In Educating the Majority, Edited by: Pearson, C. 102–113. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co..
Morrow, D. F.1993. 'Social work with gay and lesbian adolescents'. Social Work, 38(6): 655–660.
Mulé, N.1999. 'Social work and the provision of health care and social services to sexual minority populations'. Canadian Social Work, 1(1): 39–55.
Mullaly, R.1998. Structural Social Work: Ideology, Theory and Practice, Toronto: Oxford University Press. 2nd edn
National Association of Social Workers (NASW). 1999. Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Available at: http://www.naswdc.org/
Newman, B. S., Dannenfelser, P. L. and Benishek, L.2002. 'Assessing beginning social work and counseling students' acceptance of lesbians and gay men'. Journal of Social Work Education, 38(2): 273–288.
O'Neill, B.1995. 'Canadian social work education and same‐sex sexual orientation'. Canadian Social Work Review, 12(2): 159–174.
Pharr, S.1988. Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism, Arkansas: Chardon Press.
Quality Assurance Agency. 2000. Social Policy and Administration and Social Work, Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
Razack, N.1999. 'Anti‐discriminatory practice: pedagogical struggles and challenges'. British Journal of Social Work, 29(2): 231–250.
Reamer, F. G.1998. 'The evolution of social work ethics'. Social Work, 43(6): 488(1)
Rosser, S.1986. Teaching Science and Health from a Feminist Perspective, New York: Pergamon Press.
Rothblum, E. D.1994. '"I read about myself on bathroom walls": the need for research on the mental health of lesbians and gay men', Special Section: Mental Health of Lesbians & Gay Men. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 62(2): 213–220.
Stainton, T. and Swift, K.1996. '"Difference" and social work curriculum'. Canadian Social Work Review, 13(1): 75–87.
Stevens, P. and Hall, J.1991. 'A critical historical analysis of the medical construction of lesbianism'. International Journal of Health Services, 21: 291–307.
Training Organisation for the Personal Social Services. 2003. National Occupational Standards for Social Workers. Available at: http://www.topss.org.uk/uk%5feng/standards/cdrom/Index.htm, accessed 4 February 2003
Trolander, J. A.1997. 'Fighting racism and sexism: the Council on Social Work Education'. Social Service Review, 71(1): 110 (25)
Trotter, J. and Gilchrist, J.1996. 'Assessing Dip SW students: anti‐discriminatory practice in relation to lesbian and gay issues'. Social Work Education, 15(1): 75–82.
Trotter, J. and Leech, N.2003. 'Linking research, theory and practice in personal and professional development: gender and sexuality issues in social work education'. Social Work Education, 22(2): 203–214.
van Dijk, T. A.1985a. "'Introduction: the role of discourse analysis in society'". In Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. IV, Discourse Analysis in Society, Edited by: van Dijk, T. A. London: Academic Press.
van Dijk, T. A, ed. 1985b. Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. II, Dimensions of Discourse, London: Academic Press.
Van Voorhis, R. and Wagner, M.2001. 'Coverage of gay and lesbian subject matter in social work journals'. Journal of Social Work Education, 37(1): 147–160.
van Wormer, K., Wells, J. and Boes, M.2000. Social Work with Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals: A Strengths Perspective, 22–24. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Walker, R. and Staton, M.2000. 'Multiculturalism in social work ethics'. Journal of Social Work Education, 36(3): 449–463.
Walz, T. and Ritchie, H.2000. 'Gandhian principles in social work practice: ethics revisited'. Social Work, 45(3): 213
Warner, T.2002. Never Going Back: A History of Queer Activism in Canada, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Warren, R. A.1994. Wealth and Health, Health and Wealth, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Woodman, N. J.1992. Lesbian and Gay Lifestyles: A Guide for Counseling and Education, New York: Irvington.
Wyers, N.1987. 'Homosexuality in the family'. Social Work, 32(2): 143–148.
~~~~~~~~
By NickJ. Mulé
Reported by Author
Copyright of Social Work Education is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
· HTML Full T
