Assignement introduction Content Analysis of Ethics Curriculum Requirements.pdf

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

Ethics curriculum requirements in undergraduate social work programs play a

vital role for students entering generalist practice. Scholars suggested that there are

multiple approaches to present ethics education to graduate-level social work students

(Sanders & Hoffman, 2010). However, there is a gap in the literature about how the

approaches to ethics education are applied to bachelor-level social work students. This

study focused on undergraduate social work ethics curriculum.

Social work is one of the fastest growing professions in the United States (Bureau

of Labor Statistics, 2018). In the wake of rapidly growing undergraduate social work

programs in the United States and the demands for faculty to teach ethical decision-

making, the teaching of ethics has become a vital concern to the social work profession

(Barbera et al., 2017). Ethics education in undergraduate social work programs has not

received the same scholarly attention as graduate social work programs. A qualitative

methodology was used in the current study to address this gap in the literature through a

content analysis of ethics education in Council on Social Work Education (CSWE)

accredited undergraduate social work programs in the Southeast region of the United

States.

The 2017 revisions in the National Association of Social Workers (NASW, 2017)

Code of Ethics offered guidelines for social work students and practitioners alike.

Although the CSWE and the NASW share a mutual interest, the CSWE grants colleges

and universities the prerogative to choose how ethics education is taught in their

curriculum (Sanders & Hoffman, 2010). The current study may provide a better

understanding of approaches currently in use to teach ethics at CSWE-accredited

undergraduate social work programs in the Southeast region of the United States.

Overall, the efforts to enhance ethics curriculum requirements in undergraduate

social work programs are evident by changes made to the CSWE (2015) Educational

Policies and Accreditation Standards (EPAS) and recent changes in the NASW (2017)

Code of Ethics. Prior research addressing ethics in social work CSWE-accredited

graduate programs confirmed the use of infused and other approaches to teaching ethics

education (Sanders & Hoffman, 2010). However, there was a gap in the literature on

approaches to teaching ethics education currently in use in CSWE-accredited

undergraduate social work programs.

The following sections include the background and concepts for the study.

Subsequent sections present the problem statement, the limited research in CSWE-

accredited undergraduate programs for ethics-infused curricula, and current challenges.

The purpose of the study is described along with the research questions. The theoretical

framework addresses two applicable theories, and the nature of the study conveys the

methodology used to answer the research questions. In subsequent sections, definitions

are identified for this study, and assumptions regarding data gathering are presented. The

scope and delimitations section indicates the boundaries of the study, and the significance

conveys the importance of the study to the social work profession.

Background

CSWE is the accrediting body that approves social work programs offered by

higher education institutions to ensure they meet the 2015 EPAS (Sayre & Sar, 2015).

Additionally, the CSWE allows colleges and universities to choose whether to infuse

ethics curriculum requirements in undergraduate social work programs or offer a stand-

alone ethics course. The CSWE’s 2015 EPAS represents the policy for viewing

educational curriculum. Some scholars associated curriculum theory with evaluating

current educational curriculum, policy decisions, and theorizing about future curricula.

For example, Lundgren (2015) offered an analysis of Young’s (2013) paper and

presented historical perspectives on curriculum theory including the need for a cultural

shift; Lundgren further noted impacts of economics and their implications in higher

education.

Ethics education requirements are vital in undergraduate social work programs

and have a place in social work education pedagogical discussions. Sayre and Sar (2015)

reviewed the NASW (2008) core values of social justice and discussed the challenges of

pedagogical modernization for underprepared undergraduate social work students

entering today’s programs. Sayre and Sar maintained that students are negatively

impacted by social injustices from within the colleges and universities they attend due to

the lack of ongoing support needed for writing skills and mentoring. Other scholars

agreed on the growing ethical concerns regarding undergraduate students’ abilities to

adhere to acceptable documentation practices in the field and suggested the need for

faculty to increase their knowledge in this area (McDonald et al., 2015).

The social work profession is a multifaceted, complex, and integral field tasked

with ensuring vulnerable populations’ safety. Krasen and DeLong-Hamilton (2015)

expressed collective concerns about social work students’ ethical obligations in child

welfare and comfort levels of reporting child abuse, highlighting that enhancements in

social work programs are needed to prepare students for working in this service sector.

Sanders and Hoffman (2010) examined approaches including an infused versus mixed-

model approach to teach ethics in graduate social work programs. These scholars

discussed the variations of ethics social work curriculum at universities located in the

Midwest and South areas of the United States and noted implications for the profession.

One implication included further research on how ethics content is infused in social work

programs. At the time of the current study, limited research existed on content analysis of

ethics education requirements in undergraduate social work programs in the United

States.

Problem Statement

Although there are approaches to integrate or infuse ethics curriculum in CSWE-

accredited undergraduate social work programs, these approaches have not been well

studied. The scarcity of information related to teaching ethics education in CSWE-

accredited undergraduate social work programs has created a gap in the existing

knowledge base of these approaches. The education, awareness, and knowledge of the

NASW (2017) Code of Ethics is a mandated CSWE (2015) requirement for practice as a

professional social worker in the United States. Kaplan (2006) suggested that there are

two approaches to teaching ethics in CSWE-accredited graduate programs: (a) integration

throughout the curriculum and (b) a discrete course, also described as a stand-alone or an

elective course that focuses solely on ethics. Kaplan’s study involved private religious,

public, and private nonreligious colleges and universities. In contrast, Sanders and

Hoffman (2010) suggested ethics instruction has been offered to graduate social work

students using one of three approaches: (a) discrete with common morality content, (b)

infused, and (c) discrete with mixed content with concerns regarding specifics. The

schools in Sanders and Hoffman’s study were located in Midwest and upper South states

and represented public universities and religious schools. These studies suggested there

are concerns regarding the approaches, infused or distinct, that these institutions

implement to ensure that ethics are presented to the students.

Krasen and DeLong-Hamilton (2015) discussed the ramifications of ethics

courses in social work programs and their impacts on accreditation or reaffirmation

efforts. Krasen and DeLong-Hamilton further noted vagueness in social work programs’

role in preparing undergraduate and graduate social work students for ethical practice in

child protective services. Sanders and Hoffman (2010) affirmed that revisions by the

CSWE were necessary for undergraduate and graduate social work students to recognize

ethical decision-making, to ensure advancements beyond mere knowledge-gaining

practice, and to engage marginalized students in ethical practice. Although scholars have

not focused on infused or discrete ethics courses, two studies addressed social work

ethics with reflective writing for potential practice situations. For example, Sayre and Sar

(2015) discussed social work ethics for marginalized undergraduate social work students,

especially related to writing and mentoring needs for professional practice. McDonald et

al. (2015) recommended ethics curriculum enhancement to ensure ethical practice and to

avoid harm to clientele.

However, research has shown more than one way to teach, incorporate, and

integrate ethics education in CSWE-accredited graduate social work programs in the

United States (Kaplan, 2006; Sanders & Hoffman, 2010). Despite the proliferation of

ethical concerns discussed by scholars (Krasen & DeLong-Hamilton, 2015; McDonald et

al., 2015; Sayre & Sar, 2015), the research on the different approaches to teach ethics

education in CSWE-accredited undergraduate programs was sparse. The lack of

information related to multiple ways of teaching ethics education in CSWE-accredited

undergraduate social work programs created a gap in the existing knowledge base of

these approaches. Further research on ethics education at the generalist level prompted

the need for the current study.

When examining the literature, I found evidence of problems associated with

ethics education in undergraduate social work programs and different ways to present

ethics to students. CSWE (2015) and the NASW (2017) revised policy and standards to

guide ethical decision-making for students and practitioners. Although CSWE made

efforts in 2008 and 2015 to require ethics content, no research had been conducted on

ethics curriculum in undergraduate social work programs in CSWE-accredited 4-year

institutions in the Southeast region of the United States. Further research was needed to

address the gap in approaches to understand how ethics content is infused in

undergraduate social work programs. An analysis of ethics curriculum requirements in

undergraduate social work programs may be used to develop recommendations to CSWE

regarding ethics education for accreditation and reaffirmation. These recommendations

may assist with the development of implicit or explicit outcomes related to ethics

education.

The current study contributed to an evolving field of study regarding ethics

education in undergraduate social work programs. Findings may provide undergraduate

social work full-time and adjunct faculty with a better understanding of how the

curriculum provides structural and intentional support to students engaged in coursework

and fieldwork. The implications for social change include enhanced social work practice

for undergraduate social work students in higher education to ensure consistency of

professional development in fieldwork and internship settings. This knowledge may be

used to safeguard standardization across institutions of higher learning through

professional development.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the present study was to examine ethics education requirements in

the syllabi from practice courses at CSWE-accredited undergraduate social work

programs in the Southeast region of the United States. The problem was that there was

little understanding of how CSWE-accredited undergraduate social work programs are

including ethics content in their curriculum. Several examples in the literature indicated

more than one way to teach ethics education in graduate programs: (a) infusion of ethics,

(b) a required discrete course/mixed-method approach, and (c) a required discrete course

with a focus on a common morality model (Fossen et al., 2014; Kaplan, 2006; Sanders &

Hoffman, 2010). Sanders and Hoffman (2010) used the term discrete to describe the

separateness of a stand-alone or elective ethics course that teaches “ethical behavior in

social work” (p. 13).

The current study addressed the concept of social work ethics education

requirements integrated or infused in practice courses taught in the CSWE-accredited

undergraduate social work programs in the Southeast region of the United States. A

qualitative methodology was used to address the gap in the literature through content

analysis of ethics education requirements in CSWE-accredited undergraduate social work

programs. Course syllabi were used to examine the inclusion of ethics education

curriculum requirements within CSWE-accredited undergraduate social work programs

in the Southeast United States. Based on material presented on the current CSWE, the

Southeast region comprises 12 states and has 149 undergraduate social work programs.

The following research questions (RQs) guided the study:

RQ1: How are the CSWE Competency 1 and the five practice behaviors

represented in the CSWE-accredited undergraduate social work practice courses at

private and public institutions in the Southeast region of the United States?

RQ2: How is the ethics content infused in CSWE-accredited undergraduate social

work practice courses at private and public institutions in the Southeast region of the

United States?

Theoretical Framework

One theoretical lens used in this study was common morality theory. Gert (1998)

conceptualized common morality theory and asserted that this theory is based on a simple

description of a moral system within societies that relies on the rational assumption that

all people are imperfect and are susceptible to negative behaviors. Gert further noted that

this theory is applied to rational individuals and can reduce harm to others through an

informal public system. The common morality theory by Gert includes five concepts: (a)

death, (b) pain, (c) disability, (d) loss of freedom, and (e) loss of pleasure. Common

morality theory related to the research method used to determine how content analysis is

conducted, specifically focusing on CSWE’s Competency 1, which includes five practice

behaviors, all of which are described in Chapter 2.

Curriculum theory was also used in the study. According to Lundgren (2015), this

theory is based on “(a) the goals, (b) what counts as knowledge, and (c) selection and

organization of knowledge within the constructs of a historical lens” (p. 788). Research

conducted using curriculum theory may provide insight into how ethics are taught per

CSWE’s (2015) mandates for knowledge and categorization of content at U.S.

institutions.

Nature of the Study

This qualitative study was designed to examine undergraduate ethical education

requirements and the content of syllabi of practice courses at CSWE-accredited colleges

and universities in the Southeast region of the United States. Specifically, a content

analysis of the syllabi was conducted. During the past 20 years, there has been an

increase in concerns regarding potential unethical conduct within the social work

profession. Concerns with ethical standards applied to technology use in practice were

cited by Reamer (1999), and Karpman and Drisko (2016) underscored the need for social

work education to develop social media policy to address unethical behavior for student

preparedness. Reamer (1999) asserted that undergraduate social work programs could

benefit from incorporating ethics in their curricula to assist students in linking ethics to

practice. These ethical concerns are still relevant, according to Reamer (2018), due to

new NASW guidelines in 2017 amid ethical concerns with the social workers’ use of

technology.

There is also a need for additional qualitative research in social work, as indicated

by Padgett (2017). Rudestam and Newton (2015) discussed qualitative methods that

reflected various sources of data including but not limited to documents. In the current

study, a content analysis was conducted using the syllabi of practice courses from

undergraduate social work CSWE-accredited colleges and universities in the Southeast

region of the United States. The rationale for the qualitative approach was the need to

analyze undergraduate social work practice course syllabi to determine how content is

taught as mandated by the CSWE (2015). This study addressed ethics content integrated

or infused in the practice level courses in the Southeast region. The key concepts

investigated were infused or integrated ethics content at educational institutions in the

Southeast United States.

Definitions

Specific terms fundamental to the study are defined as follows:

Common morality-discrete: An approach to graduate ethics required by a U.S.

institution whereby students are familiarized to the common morality context (Sanders &

Hoffman, 2010).

Common morality theory: A theory that was pioneered by Gert (1998) and defined

as a moral system within civilizations that depends on the rational assumption that all

individuals are imperfect and are susceptible (Sanders & Hoffman, 2010).

Council on Social Work Education (CSWE): The national accreditation agency

that represents social work education in the United States (Sayre & Sar, 2015).

Curriculum theory: Goals and thoughts that represent knowledge, as well as the

selection and organization of knowledge within a historical framework (Lundgren, 2015).

Discrete approach: The stand-alone or elective ethics course that teaches ethical

behavior in social work (Sanders & Hoffman, 2010).

Infused: Permeated ethics content throughout a social work program’s curriculum

as reflected in course objectives that adhere to the education in and the application of the

NASW Code of Ethics (Black et al., 2002).

Mixed model-discrete: Infused content on ethics or an ethics course is an elective

focused on ethics and ethical behavior in social work (Sanders & Hoffman, 2010).

National Association of Social Workers (NASW): The organization that provides

the code of ethics guidelines for the day-to-day professional conduct of social workers to

address complexities in practice in a secured manner (Sanders & Hoffman, 2010).

Private university: A college or university that operates as an educational

nonprofit organization (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2013).

Public university: A college or university primarily funded by a state government

(U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2013).

Assumptions

An assumption in this study was that all accredited colleges and universities in the

Southeast region of the United States adhere to the standards regarding ethics curriculum

in their CSWE-accredited undergraduate social work programs. This assumption is

essential to an institution’s program accreditation or reaffirmation. Another assumption

was that undergraduate social work programs had taken critical steps to prepare their

students for the complexities within the social work profession. Krasen and DeLong-

Hamilton (2015) disputed this assumption that students were ready to assume ethical

responsibilities at multifaceted child welfare agencies due to the social work program’s

role ambiguity in aiding students for such settings. Nevertheless, it was necessary to

assume that the infusion of ethics curriculum would be accompanied by a real-world

application using CSWE’s (2015) mandated EPAS. Another assumption was that CSWE-

accredited colleges and universities in the Southeast region of the United States would

have their catalogs posted on their website to show ethics education requirements in

syllabi for practice courses. I assumed that most of the syllabi could be accessed from the

websites of CSWE-accredited colleges and universities in the Southeast region.

Scope and Delimitations

This study was focused on CSWE-accredited undergraduate programs in the

Southeast region of the United States. This study did not include non-CSWE-accredited

undergraduate social work programs in the Southeast region. Distinct ethics courses were

also excluded from the study. Also excluded from this study were CSWE-accredited

graduate social work programs.

Prior studies indicated more than one approach to teaching ethics education in

CSWE-accredited graduate school programs (Sanders & Hoffman, 2010). However, little

research existed on how these approaches are applied to CSWE-accredited undergraduate

social work programs. The CSWE (2015) mandates and recent changes in the NASW

(2017) Code of Ethics were the reasons this research topic was chosen. The boundaries

included CSWE-accredited undergraduate social work practice courses. Several other

courses apply to ethics. For example, such courses could include criminal justice,

gerontology, human behavior, spirituality or religion, maternal and child health, social

welfare policy, and research (Camp et al., 2018; Fogel & Ellison, 2005; Mackey &

Levan, 2019; Megregian et al., 2020; Townsend, 2020). Findings from this study are not

generalizable to other regions outside the Southeast region of the United States but may

provide transferable information as schools evaluate ethics content.

Limitations

This study’s limitations related to the qualitative methodology included the

inability to generalize findings to other U.S. regions of CSWE-accredited colleges and

universities. Qualitative research is a limited form of inquiry in which findings cannot be

applied to other places beyond the site under study (Rudestam & Newton, 2015).

Consequently, this study’s findings were limited to the 19 CSWE-accredited colleges and

universities in the Southeast region of the United States. Another limitation of this study

was that syllabi’s course content might be limited by subject (see Landrum & Ohsowski,

2017) and by institutions. This limitation may be mitigated by the fact that accreditation

standards are uniform across all Bachelor’s in Social Work (BSW) programs in the

United States.

The human factor can be a positive and negative element of a qualitative study.

Qualitative researchers must demonstrate self-reflection to avoid research bias (Rudestam

& Newton, 2015). Because I was part of the qualitative process, mitigation of researcher

bias was factored into this study. I am a full-time undergraduate social work instructor at

one of the 19 CSWE-accredited universities in the Southeast region of the United States.

As a strategy to address course syllabi and research biases, I consulted with colleagues

and discussed thoughts that could negatively impact data collection and analysis. I was

the sole data collector for this study. In content analysis, one of the concerns is that all

codes are reliable (Prasad, 2019). One way to address this was to have another person

look at a subset of data to ensure reliability. Consequently, a second person served as an

interrater coder for two to three syllabi codings. I employed this strategy to mitigate the

potential concerns associated with researcher coding.

Significance

This research contributed to an evolving field of study regarding ethics as

integrated or infused content in undergraduate social work programs. Findings may be

used to ensure that students have acquired the knowledge and skills, primary ethical

behaviors, and social work ethics to safeguard effective social work practice. This

knowledge and skill may impact students as they become professional social workers

who will be held accountable for specific ethical criteria.

Results may also advance scientific knowledge in the social work profession and

dialogue with stakeholders identified in the study. For example, the outcomes may assist

social work faculty with alternative approaches to teaching entry-level students through

curriculum enhancement. Moreover, findings may provide evidence to law enforcement,

state and federal agencies, and community-care providers who seek to expand the social

work labor force, education, and research in the United States. Positive social change

may result from recommendations for ethics curriculum to strengthen underprepared

undergraduate social work students and reduce unethical practice by underserved student

populations.

Summary

The efforts to enhance ethics curriculum requirements for the social work

profession are evidenced by the CSWE’s decision in 2008 to revise the EPAS (Sanders &

Hoffman, 2010). The CSWE’s (2015) mandate and the NASW’s Code of Ethics revisions

for 2017 made this study relevant for undergraduate social work education. Common

morality theory and curriculum theory were used to understand approaches to teaching

ethics in undergraduate programs. Scholars noted that more research is needed to address

ethics education in social work programs to better prepare students for the profession

(Krasen & DeLong-Hamilton, 2015; McDonald et al., 2015; Sayre & Sar, 2015).

Although the CSWE (2015) allowed ethics education to be infused in the curriculum,

studies have focused on graduate social work programs. Additional research in the area of

ethics in social work education is essential to the profession and practice of social work.

The current study addressed the gap in the literature regarding how social work ethics is

taught to students in undergraduate social work programs in the Southeast region of the

United States. Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature related to this study, including

the research questions, problem statement, and theories used.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The problem addressed in this study was the lack of understanding of how

CSWE-accredited undergraduate social work programs are including ethics content in

their curriculum. The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine ethics education

requirements in CSWE-accredited undergraduate social work programs. The objectives

of the literature review were to (a) examine historical CSWE policy efforts related to a

social work practice course and curriculum enhancement, (b) review CSWE and

NASW’s previous and current collaborative efforts with social work ethics curriculum

and practice, (c) position the study within the literature that focused on social work ethics

curriculum and how the knowledge base on practice courses has evolved in CSWE-

accredited undergraduate programs, and (d) examine ethics curricula in three other social

science disciplines related to social work. Sanders and Hoffman’s (2010) study neither

validated nor invalidated an infused model for teaching ethics in social work education,

but these ethics scholars added

However, if the profession continues to accept that an infused model is adequate

for teaching ethical decision-making, far more research is required to answer a

number of questions. First, what is the content of an effective infused model?

Second, how is the content infused? Third, how does a program ensure that

instructors are adequately prepared to support an infused model? (pp. 19-20)

Literature Search Strategy

To locate relevant literature, I searched the following databases: Thoreau Multi-

Database Search, SocINDEX, MEDLINE, ERIC, Education Source, and Academic

Search Complete. I also consulted credible websites for information, including those

related to the Florida Social Work Consortium, CSWE, NASW, Department of

Homeland Security, Human Services, American Psychological Association, American

Nurses Association, American Counseling Association, Accreditation of Counseling and

Related Educational Programs, and the National Board for Certified Counselors. The

search terms included curriculum development, values, ethics, social work education,

social work values, social work ethics, ethics education, social work, comparing

outcomes graduate, ethical professional writings, writing values, principles, psychology

ethics, nursing ethics, and ethics counseling education.

The Thoreau Multi-Database Search database yielded 30 results for the search

terms curriculum, values, and ethics. Using the search terms curriculum, theory, and

crisis resulted in 66 additional journal articles. Applying the terms professional, ethical

writings, and principles elicited three different articles. Combining the search terms

ethics education and social work education and graduate students produced one more

result. The full-text and non-full-text searches resulted in 138 articles for the search terms

social work education, social work values, and social work ethics.

Theoretical Foundation

Two theories, common morality theory (Gert, 1998) and curriculum theory

(Lundgren, 2015), provided the theoretical foundation for this study. Gert’s (1998)

common morality theory stems from moral philosophy rooted in the study of the moral

obligation of actions and after actions, which rightly or wrongly is constructed through a

series of rules. Gert posited that common morality theory is based on a moral system.

When a moral rule is broken, regardless of the reason, it must adhere to upholding

another rule that prevents further harm (Sanders & Hoffman, 2010). Sanders and

Hoffman (2010) used common morality theory as a framework for research about ethics

education and outcomes with graduate social work students. I applied the same

theoretical foundation in the current study. Regarding ethics education in practice courses

and the use of the NASW (2017) Code of Ethics, I applied common morality theory to

teaching ethics education in undergraduate social work programs.

Curriculum theory was discussed by Linné (2015), who credited Lundgren as the

pioneer of the theory and highlighted the challenges of moving from a frame factor

standpoint in the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s. A frame factor situates

curriculum content from a certain period to teach concepts applicable to that era.

However, some scholars have agreed on the need for relevant curriculum inquires.

Westbury (2007) argued that curriculum scholars should shift from a text-theorizing

approach to a real-world one. Text theorizing offers limited understanding of the

manifestation of larger social issues and complexities in the social work professions.

Highlighted proceedings from a conference, according to Englund et al. (2012),

emphasized the importance of a curriculum related to knowledge. Although Linné did not

mention direct curriculum theory applications to social work education, this theory was

suitable for content analysis of ethics curriculum requirements in undergraduate social

work programs. Curriculum theory was appropriate for this study due to its educational

framework where knowledge is underway (see Linné, 2015). Groessl (2015) reminded

designers of social work courses of the importance of values and ethics and further

warned that designers should not take strategies to teach such classes lightly. The two

research questions in the current study related to the challenge in describing how CSWE

(2015) Competency 1 and the five practice behaviors are infused in CSWE-accredited

undergraduate social work practice courses at private and public institutions in the

Southeast region of the United States.

Council on Social Work Education’s Curriculum History

An introductory overview of the history of CSWE’s commitment to content

analysis of social work curriculum for students’ preparedness is relevant for

understanding where the body of literature related to this study’s topic originated. The

value placed on CSWE’s evolving commitment to the social work curriculum,

specifically in a foundation or practice course, is not a new concept. Hines (2004)

asserted that social work curriculum infusion or integration began over 70 years ago. In

1942, all U.S. schools of social work were expected to integrate a method of social work

practice course into their social work curriculum. In 1952, the CSWE first announced its

statement for curriculum policy, including expectations that all social work students must

ascertain social workgroup knowledge, known then and now as a foundations course

(Hines, 2004). Murphy (1959) also confirmed the need to enhance curriculum

development to measure mutual concepts, central elements, and overall educational

objectives. The 1950s and 1960s brought about a shift in the growing interest in the

profession’s ethics and practitioners (Callahan & Bok, 1980). Sweifach (2014)

acknowledged U.S. social work educationalist Pumphrey, who in 1961 reported an urgent

need for clinical social work practitioners to demonstrate applications of values and

ethics in service delivery and make it observable to novice clinical social work students

in preparation for individual, group, and community practice. During this period, the

literature on values and ethical issues, as argued by Pumphrey (1961), directly referenced

graduate-level students but not undergraduate students. Pumphrey is historically

significant to the knowledge base on how values and ethics education curriculum evolved

8 years later. Zeiger (2002) reported that in 1969 the NASW recognized the BSW as an

entry-level practice. NASW’s historic decisions are relevant to the current study and

today’s entry-level social work students. As evidenced by landmark decisions in

recognition of the baccalaureate community, the collaboration between the accreditation

agency and the national organization is discussed in the next section.

Casework (micro practice), group work (mezzo practice), and community

organizing (macro practice) were merged into a single practice framework by CSWE in

1969 through its new curriculum policy formulation (Simon & Kilbane, 2014; Sweifach,

2014). Sweifach (2014) also reported that the 1970s was a transitional period that moved

from the previously mentioned framework to the newly identified generalist curriculum.

As the 1970s evolved, the social work profession and other disciplines, including but not

limited to medicine, law, business, journalism, engineering, nursing, and criminal justice,

began to examine the complexities of ethical issues more stringently. Some researchers

signaled a renewed focus on values and ethics in the social work profession during the

early 1980s (Reamer, 2001; Reamer & Abramson, 1982). These researchers argued that

faculty members must teach ethical practice in classroom settings and field practicums to

prepare social work students for the contemporary challenge in field practice. Values and

ethics have existed as an integral component of social work practice. For the most part,

the purpose is to maintain human dignity and respect as practitioners strive to practice

with values, ethics, and principles necessary in the profession. These professional

requirements affirm that requirements and ethical concerns are paramount in the human

services sector (Griffiths et al., 2018).

The historical perspective was relevant to the current study because it illustrated

efforts that schools of social work made in the development of CSWE’s standards for

curriculum policy (Hines, 2004). These efforts helped to ascertain social work knowledge

that contributed to transforming foundation course content. CSWE used content analysis

to determine the presence of individual concepts within the texts that resulted in

curriculum development. Content analysis is a research method used to determine the

presence of specific words, patterns, or concepts within qualitative data (Krippendorff,

2013). The historical background of social work curriculum enhancement and ethics

education in the context of professional responsibility is discussed in the next section.

Approaches to Teaching Ethics in Social Work

The education, awareness, and knowledge of the NASW (2017) Code of Ethics is

a mandated CSWE (2015) requirement to graduate and practice as a professional social

worker in the United States. Researchers have offered multiple ways to teach ethics in

graduate social work programs (Kaplan, 2006; Sanders & Hoffman, 2010), but the

literature was sparse on approaches related to teaching ethics in undergraduate social

work programs. The lack of information about infused or discrete methods in the

baccalaureate community created a gap in the existing knowledge base for these

approaches in CSWE-accredited undergraduate programs.

Research conducted on teaching social work ethics must include a discussion on

the position of generalist social work education related to how ethics content is integrated

or infused and presented to students. Sanders and Hoffman (2010) emphasized the

importance of ethics and values in the social work profession by asking “given the

profession’s proclivity for evidence-based practice, would it not make sense to continue

evaluative research that helps us determine evidence-based best practices for teaching

important contents areas?” (p. 20). A review of the literature on approaches to curriculum

requirements for ethics education in undergraduate social work programs indicated that

marginal attention had been paid. Sayre and Sar (2015) noted that CSWE is the national

accreditation agency for social work programs and is responsible for ensuring that

curriculum’s ethics component is met. Sayre and Sar further suggested different ways to

achieve this expectation; these approaches included integration or infusion of ethics

curriculum at CSWE-accredited institutions.

Moreover, Sayre and Sar (2015) directed their efforts toward studying

correlations between infused or distinct approaches to ensure that ethics are presented to

graduate social work students at two public state universities and one private religious

school. It has been over a decade since CSWE (2008) revised its core competencies to the

recently mandated 2015 EPAS (Sayre & Sar, 2015). For the current study, I examined

ethics curricula from private and public CSWE undergraduate institutions in the

Southeast region of the United States using the CSWE (2015) mandates. I also examined

how ethics is infused for practice courses in undergraduate social work programs. Social

work faculty are responsible for ensuring that ethics content is taught in micro, macro,

management, and ethics courses and field seminar to safeguard professional conduct

(Boland-Prom et al., 2018). Teaching ethics education goes beyond the classroom to

safeguarding professional behavior in practice to avoid legal implications. Reamer (1999)

stated “social workers must be concerned about the ramifications of their ethical

decisions and actions, particularly the possibility of professional malpractice and

misconduct” (p. 4). Twenty years later, additional information in the literature reviewed

substantiated the need for social workers to enhance their understanding of ethical

standards in social work practice.

Some researchers have contended that in the wake of rising lawsuits in the United

States (Barker & Branson, 2000; Houston-Vega et al., 1997; Reamer, 2015), efforts have

been made to broaden ethical standards. According to Reamer (2018), this was due to

advancing technology and the need to devise feasible risk-management approaches to

protect vulnerable populations. Reamer (2018) noted first-time collaborative efforts

between stakeholders within social work organizations in the United States, specifically

NASW, CSWE, the Association of Social Work Boards, and the Clinical Social Work

Association. Reamer (2018) added that these regulatory bodies united to develop new

guidelines in 2017 amid ethical concerns with the social workers’ use of technology. As

postulated by Reamer (2018), these four governing organizations have a responsibility to

jointly address the current social worker’s use of technology and ethical concerns. These

efforts appear to be related to Sanders and Hoffman’s (2010) concerns raised 8 years

prior. Sanders and Hoffman challenged the social work profession to conduct more

research in education and ethical decision-making. Two of the first three questions asked

by Sanders and Hoffman, as stated in the beginning of this chapter, are similar to the two

research questions in the current study. However, the boundaries of the current study

were the Southeast region of the United States.

Measurement of Moral Reasoning and Teaching Approach

Although I perceived a gap in the knowledge base on approaches to presenting

ethics education at the generalist level, prior studies showed promising outcomes using

the Defining Issues Test (DIT) (Rest et al., 1999). Kaplan (2006) conducted a quantitative

study using the DIT measure with 265 master-level social workers (MSW) between 1999

and 2001. Kaplan compared MSW social workers who graduated with undergraduate

degrees in social work and undergraduate degrees in liberal arts, with specific ethics

courses in their undergraduate education, and those who did not have ethics courses in

undergraduate education. Kaplan found ethics courses to be marginally associated with

levels of moral reasoning. Although Kaplan found the infusion method of ethics

education was more effective than discrete courses, Kaplan argued that a student’s moral

reasoning would be enhanced by both infused and discrete ethics courses.

Sanders and Hoffman (2010) conducted a study of 144 graduate students in the

Midwest and South areas of the United States that consisted of three CSWE-accredited

schools of social work. Sanders and Hoffman found that the curriculum differed in the

way these institutions taught ethics or conveyed content (discrete, infused, or mixed

model, as measured by the DIT2 for moral decision-making [Rest et al., 1999]), but

asserted that they could neither validate nor invalidate an infused model for ethics

education. Kaplan (2006) and Sanders and Hoffman agreed that more research on ethics

education and curriculum expansion in CSWE-accredited graduate programs was

warranted. Dolgoff et al. (2012) pointed out that unethical conduct at multiple levels in

society has become commonplace. Dolgoff et al. added that courses in ethics are on the

rise, including but not limited to institutions of higher education.

Models of Decision-Making and Teaching Approaches

Researchers provided evidence on ethical decision-making with undergraduate

social work students enrolled in a capstone course that included former CSWE standards.

Fossen et al. (2014) researched an ethical decision-making model known as the examine,

think, hypothesize, identify, consult, select, and advocate (ETHICA) model (Congress,

1999, 2000). Through the original mandates of the CSWE 2001 EPAS, Fossen et al.

analyzed social work program data from field instructor assessments, alumni self-

assessments, and feedback from employer surveys that showed program objectives were

achieved. Fossen et al. further asserted that social work program faculty decided to

integrate ethics content into social work practice courses instead of offering a stand-alone

ethics course. According to Fossen et al., curriculum immersion occurred due to new

insights gained by students’ recognition of ethical decision-making, per the NASW

(2008) guidelines. Fossen et al. added that these former undergraduate social work

students were enrolled in suitable courses whereby content and progression of infused

ethics education occurred. On the other hand, Edwards and Addae (2015) offered a

strategy to teach an undergraduate social work elective course as a model for ethical

decision-making. Using the former NASW (2008) standards, Edwards and Addae

described course content that focused on rural social work practice.

This research study could benefit from the frameworks described above to

examine ethics contents using the new CSWE (2015) mandates and revised NASW

(2017) standards. It is not widely known how these approaches apply to methods of

social work practice courses and could potentially be useful in undergraduate social work

education. The CSWE (2015) EPAS, competency 1, states that “social workers

understand the value base of the profession and its ethical standard, as well as relevant

laws and regulations that may impact practice at the micro, mezzo, and macro levels” (p.

7). Therefore, an examination of various approaches to teach ethics in undergraduate

social work programs was examined. However, due to limited research knowledge in

ethics education in undergraduate social work programs, I expanded the literature review

to include three other social science disciplines: psychology, counseling education, and

nursing.

Comparative Disciplines and Ethics Curricula

Psychology

During the 1980s, the evolution of ethics education in undergraduate psychology

programs began to surface relevant to legal practice and a stand-alone philosophy course

in logic and ethics (Swenson, 1983). A social psychology course was incorporated into

the curriculum due to the rise of social issues (Swenson, 1988). Over the years, the debate

continued in the discipline to include a need to shift from presenting ethics solely during

internships to the classroom setting (Haemmerlie & Matthews, 1988). In contrast, Barber

and Bagsby (2012) postulated that content should include ethics on research and

participants in undergraduate psychology programs and offered online teaching resources

to support faculty, although more is needed. You et al. (2018) argued that students should

be presented with ethics in an introduction to psychology course, followed by a research

methods course.

Barber et al. (2015) believed that the undergraduate psychology curriculum had

not received the attention needed to address acceptable participant behavior guidelines.

Using the American Psychological Association’s (APA, 2007) guidelines, Barber et al.

(2015) utilized a quantitative method to survey 44 undergraduate psychology students to

test an online learning module’s efficacy. Their study’s three dimensions included

students’ ethical perceptions, knowledge, and behavior to test an online learning

module’s effectiveness. The results of their study showed promise for increasing ethical

knowledge and behavior but not in students’ perceptions. While Barber et al. (2015)

found these results occurred, other scholars reported results through a review of course

syllabi, which is consistent with this research study.

Building on undergraduate studies’ momentum, recent literature has brought

attention to ethics education in psychology graduate programs. However, the structure of

the content varies and focused mostly on course objectives and institutional policies.

Through content analysis of syllabi, Griffith et al. (2014) found that content consisted of

three broad categories: (a) general information (course objectives and school policies),

(b) assignments, (c) journal articles, and (d) books. Likewise, You et al.’s (2018) study

found the same content but also noted (a) requirement, (b) schedule, and (c) grading.

Both of these studies employed quantitative methodologies to determine ethics curricula

content.

Counselor Education

In 1981, the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational

Programs (CACREP) was established (www.cacrep, 2020). The American Counseling

Association (ACA) provides ethical decision-making guidelines for counselors and

counselors in training (ACA, 2014). Leading panel experts have recognized the

importance of ethics education within the counseling industry. Herlihy and Dufrene

(2011) surveyed 18 expert panelists using the Delphi technique to gain greater insight

into how leaders respond to ethical issues. The results revealed more than half (61%) of

the participants agreed that ensuring ethical practice by counselors and adhering to the

code was most important. The results also showed consensus by all 18 that teaching

ethical decisions to be the most critical issue in counselor preparation. Seventy-eight

percent of participants agreed on modeling appropriate relationships in counselor

education programs.

The complexity of adherence to professional codes is a layered process. For

example, Kolb (1984) offered a model for ethical decision-making. According to ACA

(2014), “No specific ethical decision-making model is always most effective, so

counselors are expected to use a credible model of decision making that can bear public

scrutiny of its application” (p. 3). However, to further understand how a model was used

to infuse ethics-related content in a counselor education program, Sanabria and Murray

(2018) suggested an assignment that infused human sexuality content to help counselor

educators strengthen their student’s professional development for ethical services to a

diverse clientele. Kimball and Daniel (2020) promoted a reflective writing assignment to

enhance cognitive complexities via ethics education.

Modeling appropriate behavior, as discussed above, has surfaced in recent

literature. Burns (2019) surveyed counseling education graduate students who rated 16

boundary-crossing scenarios involving counselor educators. A total of 224 students

completed the pretest and posttest for this study. The results indicated that students found

it unacceptable for a counselor educator to engage in 9 of the 16 scenarios. With the

exception of the placebo, the scenarios were aligned with the ACA Code of Ethics

(2014), boundary-crossing decision-making model (Gottlieb, 1993), and social dual-role

relationship model (Burian & Slimp, 2000). The results indicated the students’ awareness

of boundary-crossing as unethical and power differentials between themselves and the

counselor educator.

In contrast, Rapp et al. (2018) discussed concerns with counselor education

programs’ lack of support to doctoral students and offered curriculum recommendations

for ethics-related to gatekeeping, among others. In addition to the ACA Code of Ethics

(2014), and the 2016 CACREP Standards (2015), and the National Board for Certified

Counselors Code of Ethics (2012), the authors suggested infusing these mandates in

curriculum and training with doctoral students. The authors further asserted that these

codes and standards be included during orientation and advising sessions and as discrete

courses. According to ACA (2014), “Gatekeeping – the initial and ongoing academic,

skill, and dispositional assessment of students’ competency for professional practice,

including remediation and termination as appropriate” (p. 20).

Nursing

During the late 1980s, Thompson and Thompson (1989) discussed concerns

relevant to ethics education in nursing approaches, content, and methodology. Consensus

on standardizations for ethics education in nursing programs is still evolving. To gain a

broader view of what scholars have done to promote ethics education in nursing, it is

essential to identify past efforts. Burkemper et al. (2007) surveyed Master of Science in

Nursing programs accredited by either the National League for Nursing Accrediting

Commission or the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education. Burkemper et al.

(2007) found that most programs did not require instructors to complete formal ethics

training and noted a lack of competency standards. Moreover, the authors noted

inconsistencies in the approach in which ethics was taught and content. Earlier research

that involved nurses and social workers in hospital and non-hospital settings found 26%

of respondents did not receive ethics education (Ulrich et al., 2007). Grady et al. (2008)

responded to commentators that affirmed the need for more research on approaches,

content, and timing of ethics education for nurses, social workers, and other health

professionals. While Grady et al. (2008) acknowledged the importance of such debates,

they also confirmed the need for further discussion to establish ethics education goals due

to nurses and social workers’ lack of confidence and moral actions. Another author

argued that decision-making models are vital to ethics education to help aid student

nurses who were not presented with ethics education (Garity, 2009).

As previously mentioned, the DIT was used to assess the moral decision-making

of graduate social work students (Sanders & Hoffman, 2010). McLeod-Sordjan (2014)

evaluated techniques to examine one measurable outcome of moral reasoning in ethics

curricula. Using data from reflective journaling, Ethics of Care Interview (Gilligan,

1982), and DIT (Rest et al., 1999), the results suggest benefits for nurse educators to

develop a purposive assessment to increase the likelihood of pre-moral to pre-caring

stages of nursing students. To further understand the process of pre-thinking of ethics-

related activities, Krautscheid and Brown (2014) conducted a qualitative research study

to understand the lived experiences of senior-level baccalaureate nursing students

confronted with a clinical scenario that required micro ethical decision making. The

authors reported a disconnect between the curriculum, including an undergraduate ethics

course, discussions on ethics, and students’ ability to recall and apply ethics in a

simulated practice experience. According to Worthley (1997), micro ethics are day-to-

day ethical decisions faced by nurses. The 2015 revisions in the American Nurses’

Association (ANA) Code of Ethics offer guidelines for nursing students, nursing faculty,

and practitioners (ANA, 2015). Some postulate that nurses, including psychiatric nurses,

are not well-trained to identify ethical dilemmas upon graduating from nursing programs

(Chao et al., 2017; Park, 2012). Recent research offers modern-day approaches to ethics

education in nursing programs. As such, scholars designed a two-part e-learning system

that was integrated into the curriculum for a stand-alone nursing ethics course (part one),

which also involved evaluating its effectiveness (part-two) in their quasi-experimental

study (Chao et al., 2017).

Demonstrated ethical competence could contribute to increasing the likelihood of

ethical decision-making. Pachkowski (2017) conducted a study and noted an essential

factor in ethics competence: awareness of evolving complexities in healthcare settings

and the ability to assess them accordingly. The author also suggested a familiarity with

ethics theory to provide a framework for ethical decision-making. Finally, the author

offered five characteristics for an ethically competent nurse: (a) recognizes the complex

medical, social, legal, and interpersonal factors which influence the patient’s presenting

state; (b) recognizes the effect of the patient’s mental health state; (c) recognizes her or

his own values and can assess and manage the influence of these; (d) has sufficient

familiarity with a variety of ethical theories to provide a framework of assessment or to

apply decision‐making models meaningfully; and (e) can act to resolve issues within her

or his scope of practice. The author further noted action could include the following:

identify moral issues as moral issues; distinguish moral issues from legal issues; assess

the situation to refer onward, consult or make a moral deliberation; and assess the impact

and consequences of the dilemma/action on the patient, family, and self.

In contrast, Krautscheid (2017) conducted a qualitative study that assessed

curriculum in a bachelor of nursing program that infused micro ethical dilemmas in high-

fidelity simulation scenarios. The authors found that the participants failed to apply ethics

education previously learned in coursework. Grason (2020) conducted a qualitative study

of nursing faculty perceptions in undergraduate programs to understand their experiences,

teaching ethics, and ethics-related educational background. Eleven faculty participated in

the study. The research finding showed that faculty, along with the students they taught,

lacked preparation, challenging content, and had an overburdened curriculum. These

results confirm previous ethics education in nursing programs studies discussed above.

Summary of Comparative Disciplines

The evolving literature within three social science disciplines: psychology,

counseling, and nursing, and confirm professional accreditation standards to guide ethical

decision making for both students and practitioners alike. All disciplines appear to face

similar challenges related to approaches, content, and methods for including ethics

education in their accredited programs. More specifically, the timing to introduce ethics

education to students and ethics-related assignments, techniques, and assessments

relevant to stress reductions in preparation for future practice. The majority of the

literature focused on students in master’s and doctoral social work programs.

There were also differences within the disciplines. For example, the nursing

programs were challenged by nurse educators and their students who lack prior ethics

training. The counselor education programs are challenged with gatekeeping of the

profession. The psychology programs are balancing the decision of exactly where to

focus ethics in course syllabi. Although the challenges vary, all three professions appear

to be committed to ethics education amid a changing and complex society.

This information can inform the social work profession in three ways:

1. Continue the focus of ethics education in all levels of practice courses.

2. Establish ethics training for social work faculty, consider internal or external

program evaluation of the social work department, and ensure student

assessments and outcomes, per CSWE (2015) mandates.

3. Maintain a central focus on modern-day technology to ensure ethical practice

in the social work profession.

Summary of Literature Review

Overall, the literature review focused on several aspects of ethics education in

social work, a historical analysis of CSWE policy efforts related to content analysis of a

social work foundation course for curriculum enhancement, and collaboration between

CSWE and NASW to ensure social work ethics curriculum and practice. Research

showed different approaches to teaching ethics in graduate social work programs. For

example, in general, the infused approach was used in most social science disciplines.

However, limited research exists on how these approaches are applied in undergraduate

social work.

Findings from previous research studies also suggested that the code of ethics and

professional standards are not enough to ensure ethical behaviors. These standards should

be augmented with appropriate and timely introductions in curricula, orientations,

training, assessments, and evaluations to reduce liabilities of cause harm and increase the

likelihood of ethical practice. Meanwhile, more research is needed to address ethics in

professional education.

Chapter 3 describes the methodology used to collect the data necessary for

conducting the content analysis. The chapter will provide a review of how I obtained the

sample of syllabi and the measurement tool used for coding the syllabi. Furthermore, I

discuss strategies to ensure trustworthiness and confidentiality, and ethical issues related

to the study.

Chapter 3: Research Method

The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine ethics education

requirements in practice courses in CSWE-accredited undergraduate social work

programs. I examined the CSWE (2015) Competency 1 and the five practice behaviors.

Competency 1 and the five practice behaviors are taught in undergraduate social work

practice courses at private and public undergraduate social work programs in the

Southeast region of the United States. The CSWE (2015) and the social work profession

may be informed of the different approaches to ethics education in CSWE-accredited

undergraduate social work programs.

The phenomenon of interest was ethics content of the curricula in CSWE-

accredited undergraduate social work course syllabi in the Southeast region of the United

States. CSWE (2015) Competency 1 requires students to demonstrate ethical and

professional behavior. Additionally, the five CSWE (2015) practice behaviors were

reviewed: (a) make ethical decisions by applying the standards of the NASW Code of

Ethics, relevant laws and regulations, models for ethical decision-making, ethical conduct

of research, and additional codes of ethics as appropriate to content; (b) use reflections

and self-regulation to manage personal values and maintain professionalism in practice

situations; (c) demonstrate professional demeanor in behavior, appearance, and oral,

written, and electronic communication; (d) use technology ethically and appropriately to

facilitate practice outcomes; and (e) use supervision and consultation to guide

professional judgment and behavior.

This chapter presents the methodology used to identify the information necessary

in conducting a content analysis. I review how the sample of syllabi was obtained, and

the measurement tool used for coding the syllabi. Furthermore, I review strategies used to

ensure trustworthiness and confidentiality and discuss ethical issues that emerged in the

study. Course syllabi were used in this qualitative study to examine the inclusion of

ethics curriculum requirements within CSWE-accredited undergraduate social work

programs. The following research questions guided the study:

RQ1: How are the CSWE Competency 1 and the five practice behaviors

represented in the CSWE-accredited undergraduate social work practice courses at

private and public institutions in Southeast region of the United States?

RQ2: How is ethics content infused in CSWE-accredited undergraduate social

work practice courses at private and public institutions in the Southeast region of the

United States?

Unlike prior research that included quantitative methods for numerical outputs

(Fossen et al., 2014), I applied a qualitative approach. I examined existing documents

(course syllabi) to comprehend ethics education in undergraduate social work programs.

A qualitative approach was suitable for this study because it allowed me to categorize and

code ethics-infused content found in the curricula at 19 CSWE-accredited colleges and

universities in the Southeast region of the United States.

Role of the Researcher

I currently hold a position as a full-time faculty member in a social work program

at a private nonprofit sectarian institution in Florida. Also, I have a previous professional

affiliation with one public university in Florida. Potential researcher biases included prior

teaching experience in undergraduate CSWE-accredited social work programs,

specifically in methods of social work practice courses in the state of Florida. My world

views are shaped through work experience with course design and curriculum

enhancements at a private undergraduate CSWE-accredited social work program in the

state of Florida. The BSW program I currently teach in did not offer a discrete ethics

course at the time of this study; therefore, my experience had only been with infusing

ethics content. These views influenced the design for this qualitative study based on the

premise that practice courses would only include Methods of Social Work Practice I, II,

and III. However, other institutions in the Southeast region of the United States

unfamiliar to me may include other practice courses that may yield rich information from

a content analysis of course syllabi. To mitigate personal values and reduce bias, I

consulted with colleagues to incorporate an objective approach, thereby avoiding

preconceived ideas on how an institution should or should not infuse or integrate ethics

education at undergraduate CSWE-accredited colleges and universities in the Southeast

region of the United States.

Methodology

Participant Selection

The syllabi were the unit of analysis. The participating institutions for this study

included undergraduate social work programs in the Southeast region of the United States

accredited by CSWE. The Southeast region was chosen because it was near my home

state, had not been previously studied, and provided a manageable sampling frame. Using

the Directory of Accredited Programs search tool on the CSWE website, I filtered by

state and program level to identify the following BSW programs in the Southeast region

of the United States: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. An

emailed invitation to participate was sent to all 149 schools within this region that were

listed on the CSWE website. The listing of schools is located in Appendix E.

Fifty-one syllabi from schools in 10 states were received. The sample included

syllabi from methods of social work practice courses from 19 programs. The inclusion

criteria required syllabi from methods of social work practice courses be provided to me

as a PDF, Word document, or HML text.

Instrumentation

The data collection instrument included an adapted version of the CSWE (2015)

Sample Generalist Curriculum Matrix. The CSWE revised the Sample Generalist

Curriculum Matrix in 2017. The matrix is published on the CSWE’s website. The CSWE

recommended this data collection instrument, which is offered to CSWE-accredited

colleges or universities to track 2015 core competencies. The adapted instrument helped

me conduct a content analysis to answer the two research questions. Specifically, the

adapted instrument was used to code the data in the syllabi representing ethics content.

I adapted the language from the electronic PDF matrix to align with the two research

questions in the study. This instrument is located in Appendix A.

Although language modification was needed, this matrix form had been used with

CSWE-accredited colleges and universities in the United States and was deemed suitable

to organize data for the current study. Methods of social work practice courses, also

referred to as foundation courses, are required for all CSWE-accredited undergraduate

social work programs. The method-appropriate strategy for content validity allowed for a

critical examination of ethics education in the methods of social work practice courses.

Procedures for Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection

The participating institutions in this study included CSWE-accredited colleges

and universities in the Southeast region of the United States. I assumed that most of the

syllabi could be accessed from the school’s website; however, that was not the case.

Instead, I had to contact university and college deans, department chairs, and directors,

who granted access to the course syllabi to examine ethics education curriculum

requirements in CSWE-accredited undergraduate social work practice courses.

Recruitment involved four steps. First, I obtained the list of schools and contact

information from CSWE’s website. Second, I called the deans, chairs, and directors at

colleges and universities to extend the research invitation. The telephone script is located

in Appendix C. Third, I followed up with an email to reiterate the telephone conversation

regarding the study, and attached a copy of the IRB consent form. This email message is

located in Appendix D. Fourth, I received email responses from deans, directors, and

chairs, accompanied by signed IRB consent forms, which I signed and returned before

obtaining the requested syllabi for the study.

According to Ravitch and Carl (2016), this method was conducive to addressing a

phenomenon. I was the sole person collecting the undergraduate social work course

syllabi for the study. Data collection began on February 19, 2020. The data collection

ended on October 15, 2020 once I obtained the practice course syllabi from deans,

department chairs, and directors at colleges and universities. The data for this study were

recorded in a CSWE (2015) matrix Word document. Approval to use this document was

obtained via email from CSWE on April 4, 2019 (see Appendix B). Neither debriefing

nor follow-up procedures applied to this study because data were obtained from methods

of social work practice course syllabi at university and college institutions, not human

subjects. The data were copied and pasted into a Word document and analyzed to answer

the research questions.

Data Analysis Plan

Open coding (see Ravitch & Carl, 2016) was used to note sections of content in

the methods of social work practice course syllabi from 19 CSWE-accredited

undergraduate programs in the Southeast region of the United States. Ravitch and Carl

(2016) asserted that sections of the document could be utilized to identify specific words

related to the study. Terms associated with data for this study were CSWE 2015

Competency 1 and practice behaviors. Other terms related to the data included course

content, readings, module, assignment, case studies, quizzes, exams, class activity, and

service-learning. Seven terms linked to dimensions included knowledge, skills, values,

cognitive and affective processes, ethics, awareness, and ability. Finally, public and

private colleges and universities were linked to institution type.

According to Miles et al. (2014), the initial phase of open coding involves word

designation for terms relevant to portions of data. In the current study, the concepts

included the following: the CSWE (2015) Competency 1: Demonstrate Ethical and

Professional Behavior. Also included were CSWE’s (2015) five practice behaviors: (a)

make ethical decisions by applying the standards of the NASW Code of Ethics, relevant

laws and regulations, models for ethical decision-making, ethical conduct of research,

and additional codes of ethics as appropriate to content; (b) use reflections and self-

regulation to manage personal values and maintain professionalism in practice situations;

electronic communication; (d) use technology ethically and appropriately to facilitate

practice outcomes; and (e) use supervision and consultation to guide professional

judgment and behavior.

The data collected were placed in a matrix to code infused content of ethics

education in the syllabi. Appropriate for qualitative studies, Dedoose (2016) software was

used to analyze patterns of codes with ethics education content. Dedoose is a web-based,

password-protected qualitative software program that allows users to analyze and

organize data. I managed discrepant cases by classifying the syllabi’s lack of similarity

for ethics education content.

Issues of Trustworthiness

The credibility of qualitative studies depends on trustworthiness between the

researcher’s categories and what is true. According to Ravitch and Carl (2016),

qualitative researchers should develop a validity strategy that links the design,

instrument, and data. First, I used an Excel spreadsheet to identify and label data from the

19 CSWE-accredited colleges and universities in the Southeast region of the United

States. The existing documents included methods of social work practice course syllabi.

This information was backed up using digital and hard copies to ensure data collection

(see Saldana, 2016). These two strategies helped to minimize challenges with

streamlining classifications for continuity of data. Another data collection method

included the CSWE (2015) matrix for undergraduate programs approved for use on April

4, 2019, by the CSWE. A pattern of observations was repeated to enhance internal

validity.

Transferability in qualitative research can be ensured contextually when the

findings’ generalizability can help understand something being questioned (Ravitch &

Carl, 2016). However, the current qualitative study was unique in that it did not represent

a large population, but rather 19 CSWE-accredited colleges and universities in the

Southeast region of the United States. Dedoose was used to analyze the data to strengthen

the external validity of the study. The findings are generalizable only to the Southeast

region of the United States. Enhanced interrater coding involved a colleague from my

university.

Ravitch and Carl (2016) posited that reliability in qualitative research is based on

how the researcher collects data. Enhanced interrater coding involved a colleague to

ensure reliability. To initiate the coding process, I used numeric codes to classify each

sample syllabi with the course level to ensure confidentiality on an Excel spreadsheet. To

further facilitate the coding process, my colleague and I standardized the coding process

and added CSWE Competency 1 and the five practice behaviors, course content,

dimensions, and institution type to the Excel spreadsheet. Once we were in agreement, I

extracted data from three sample syllabi and entered it into the Excel spreadsheet and

emailed it to my colleague to review. After four consultations, we came to 100%

agreement and I proceeded with the study. I employed these procedures and ethical

practices to obtain documents that included methods of social work practice course

syllabi at CSWE-accredited colleges or universities in the Southeast region of the United

States. The data used to answer two research questions. The design supported a content

analysis of the ethics curriculum in undergraduate social work programs in the U.S

Southeast region to ensure dependability.

Confirmability refers to stable data and how qualitative researchers can admit to

subjectivity (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). Ravitch and Carl (2016) suggested that researchers

should explore their relationship in various aspects of a study. My interest in the research

topic was aligned with my current work at a CSWE-accredited undergraduate social work

program in Florida. I acknowledged the potential bias in selecting syllabi as the unit of

analysis of data to be recorded. Strategies to counteract possible bias included immediate

consultation with colleagues to identify and eliminate personal agendas, if any. Although

I assumed the objective course syllabi data would mitigate potentially biased analysis, I

consulted with others to address my possible biases in the study.

Ethical Procedures

This study did not include human participants. The unit of analysis was course

syllabi from 19 CSWE-accredited undergraduate social work programs in the Southeast

region of the United States. This research was approved through an exempt review by

Walden University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB #02-27-20-0538524).

Each participating institution was assigned a numeric value for confidentiality.

All data were safeguarded on a password-protected computer under lock and key and

stored in a box. Data storage will be maintained for 5 years. Documentation of the IRB

approval was requested at one institution, and I complied. Adherence to IRB was

maintained throughout the data collection, analysis, and reporting processes.

I am an undergraduate social work instructor at one of the CSWE-accredited

universities in Florida. I obtained IRB approval at my work location and adhered to all

pertinent requests in this study. Adherence to this process reduced the likelihood of

conflict of interest or power differentials. Incentives were not offered in this study.

Summary

The goal of the study was to examine ethics content in course syllabi from 19

CSWE-accredited undergraduate social work programs in the Southeast region of the

United States. Qualitative content analysis was used to identify ethics course content. An

approved adapted version of the CSWE Sample Generalist Practice Curriculum Matrix

was used to collect the data. Walden University’s IRB approved the study before I

collected and analyzed data. This study’s design included the required components to

address and sustain ethical research practices for quality studies in the social work

profession.

Chapter 4 presents a description of the results of the study and includes personal

or organizational conditions that may have influenced the collection of data. The

specifics of how the data were obtained compared to the original plan are presented as

well as a discussion of ethical issues and discrepant cases that emerged. Furthermore,

strategies to ensure trustworthiness and confidentiality are described. Finally, limitations

and recommendations are discussed related to the peer-reviewed literature in Chapter 2.

Chapter 4: Results

The purpose of this study was to examine ethics education requirements in the

syllabi from practice courses at CSWE-accredited undergraduate social work programs in

the Southeast region of the United States. To examine the inclusion of ethics education

curriculum requirements within CSWE-accredited undergraduate social work programs

in the Southeast region of the United States, two research questions were addressed:

RQ1: How are the CSWE Competency 1 and the five practice behaviors

represented in CSWE-accredited undergraduate social work practice courses at private

and public institutions in the Southeast region of the United States?

RQ2: How is the ethics content infused in CSWE-accredited undergraduate social

work practice courses at private and public institutions in the Southeast region of the

United States?

The focus of this chapter is to describe the organizational settings, boundaries,

and characteristics associated with the course syllabi. Second, I present a discussion of

the data-gathering process, duration, and data instrument. Third, I discuss the open

coding, data analysis, larger categories, emerging patterns, and qualities of four

discrepant cases. Fourth, credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability

associated with trustworthiness are discussed. Finally, I discuss the findings pertinent to

the two research questions addressing the undergraduate social work practice course

syllabi at CSWE-accredited colleges and universities in the Southeast region of the

United States.

Setting

The organizational setting for this study comprised CSWE-accredited

undergraduate social work programs in Southeast region of the United States. States in

the southeast region include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. The

CSWE accredited BSW programs by state are listed in Appendix E.

Demographics

The sample included 19 CSWE-accredited BSW programs in 10 states including

Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South

Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Of the 19 schools, nine were public and 10 were

private institutions. The sample included 51 syllabi. The syllabi represented methods of

social work practice courses I (n = 20), II (n = 18), and III (n = 13).

Data Collection

After the Walden University IRB granted approval for the study, an IRB-

approved data user agreement and a modified site approval form were provided and

presented to authorized site representatives. As an employee at one of the university sites,

I adhered to IRB regulations. I obtained exempt status because it was a minimal risk

study. Subsequently, I was granted access to three course syllabi. I assumed that the

remaining course syllabi could be obtained from the school websites. However, that was

not an option; therefore, an alternative plan was to contact the president of the Florida

Social Work Consortium. I found that it was more beneficial to email deans, department

chairs, and directors an invitation to participate in the study to access the course syllabi.

That decision resulted in access to 12 additional syllabi over a 4-month period. Due to the

sample size, at this point the study remained open. However, data collection yielded only

one additional syllabus over a 3-month period. Although I had originally planned to only

include Florida in the study, that did not yield an adequate sample size. Due to the sample

size of 16 syllabi at that point, I submitted a request for change in procedures to Walden

University’s IRB to expand the study to the Southeast region of the United States. After

IRB granted approval to expand the sample frame, I proceeded with the study. Next, a

telephone script was devised (see Appendix C) and implemented as a strategy to increase

the sample size range of 20–50 course syllabi. Once again, I found that it was

advantageous to email deans, department chairs, and directors an invitation to participate

in the study to access the course syllabi. The email message can be found in Appendix D.

That decision resulted in access to 35 additional course syllabi over a 2-week time frame.

The result was a total sample of 51 Social Work Practice I, II, and III course syllabi (unit

of analysis) collected from 19 undergraduate programs in the Southeast region of the

United States, nine of which were public and 10 were private institutions.

I collected data biweekly over a period of 4 months, initially. Due to the number

of sample syllabi obtained at that time, a subsequent data collection period occurred over

a period of 3 months. After the subsequent period, I collected data for 2 additional weeks,

and the data collection ended. As discussed in Chapter 3, the data collection instrument

was the CSWE (2015) matrix (see Appendix A).

Prior to coding, I reviewed the syllabi multiple times to familiarize myself with

the content. The data were recorded in three ways. First, an Excel spreadsheet was used

for open coding to establish key terms in a systematic manner that aligned with the two

research questions. During a repeated review of the data, I determined the need to add

four additional terms: two related to course content and two associated with aspects of

dimensions. The four terms (case study and quizzes for content and ethics and cognitive

affective processes for dimensions) were added to the instrument for data inclusiveness.

Second, Dedoose software was used to create codes derived from the Excel spreadsheet.

Next, I merged similar codes and refined the list to primary and secondary categories to

answer the first research question and second research question. Third, the CSWE (2015)

matrix Word document was used to record the collected data in the study (see Appendix

A). This study did not include human subjects. Therefore, debriefs and follow-up

procedures were not necessary.

Site variations were not included in the plan presented in Chapter 3. During the

initial data collection period, a highly unusual circumstance occurred in mid-March 2020

(the coronavirus pandemic), which caused all U.S. colleges and universities to close

(Hartocollis, 2020). Initially, the frequency and duration of data collection was

maintained despite the unusual circumstance. However, the subsequent data collection

period resulted in fewer sample syllabi than expected. Despite that, the frequency and

duration of the final data collection were sustained.

Data Analysis

To analyze the data, I used an inductive analytic strategy (see Schwandt, 2015).

According to O’Kane et al. (2021), “an inductive approach to analysis includes a wide

variety of research activities such as exploring hunches, seeing and reflecting on patterns,

building codebooks, comparing across research units, and identifying key themes, to

name a few” (p. 105). I implemented the inductive analytic strategy in three phases. First,

I reviewed the two research questions and the instrument tool to create the Excel

spreadsheet to ensure data continuity. Second, I imported the Excel spreadsheet for

analysis facilitated by Dedoose Version 8.3.17. Next, I imported the text of the sample

syllabi. From there, 54 codes were generated based on the text of the syllabi. These 54

codes were applied throughout the text of the sample syllabi, which generated 572

excerpts. Third, the 54 codes were categorized. Harding (2013) suggested that codes can

be situated in one or more categories to provide clarity. Accordingly, I created one

primary category followed by five subcategories-1 and 14 subcategories-2 to answer the

first research question. I created one primary category followed by four subcategories-1

and 15 subcategories-2 to answer the second research question.

The primary category for RQ1 was the existence of CSWE Competency 1:

demonstrate ethical and professional behaviors. I identified the existence of CSWE

Competency 1 by reviewing the learning outcomes, designated areas for CSWE EPAS

competencies, course objectives, course descriptions, program goals, and the social work

program’s mission statements in the sample syllabi. The five subcategories-1 reflected

the presence of the five CSWE practice behaviors (PB): (a) PB1 - make ethical decisions

by applying the standards of the NASW Code of Ethics, relevant laws and regulations,

models for ethical decision-making, ethical conduct of research, and additional codes of

ethics as appropriate to context; (b) PB2 - use reflection and self-regulation to manage

personal values and maintain professionalism in practice situations; (c) PB3 -

demonstrate professional demeanor in behavior, appearance, and oral, written, and

electronic communication; (d) PB4 - use technology ethically and appropriately to

facilitate practice outcomes; and (e) PB5 - use supervision and consultation to guide

professional judgment and behavior. I identified the presence of the practice behaviors by

reviewing sections of the sample syllabi that combined the CSWE Competency 1 and the

practice behaviors, some of which were illustrated in a matrix, while others were listed in

the course objectives, learning outcomes, or assignments or were broadly defined in the

sample syllabi. The 14 subcategories-2 reflected further specification including (a)

assignment, (b) case studies, (c) class activity, (d) module, (e) readings, (f) exams, (g)

service learning, (h) ability, (i) awareness, (j) ethics, (k) knowledge, (l) skills, (m) values,

and (n) cognitive and affective processes. I identified this information by reviewing the

sections for assignments, basis for student evaluations, matrix, course requirements,

student activities, required textbook, and course schedules followed by learning

outcomes, course descriptions, course objectives, and specific language associated with

the competency dimensions.

The primary category for RQ2 was the existence of ethics-infused content. The 15

subcategories-2 reflected further specification including (a) assignment, (b) case studies,

ability, (j) awareness, (k) ethics, (l) knowledge, (m) skills, (n) values, and (o) cognitive

and affective processes. I identified this information by reviewing the sections for

assignments, course requirements, learning checks, course material, methods of

evaluations, key performance indicators, required course assignment, basis for student

evaluation, required text/textbook, methods of instruction, course descriptions, social

work student standards, mental and emotional abilities, nature of course, rationale,

grading criteria, and specific language aligned with competency dimensions.

Next, I identified patterns. Saldana (2016) described a sequence of data that

occurred at least three times as a pattern. The patterns related to the first research

question were (a) CSWE Competency 1 and practice behaviors, (b) course content, and

infused content (EIC), (b) EIC representation, and (c) EIC dimensions. The patterns are

fully described with examples in the results section.

Discrepant Cases

Most syllabi followed a distinct pattern of identification as Social Work Practice

I, II, and III; however, five discrepant cases were identified. One was identified as

Practice Level 1-A, which involved a skills lab related to the Methods I course. Also

dissimilar was a syllabus identified as a Practice Level IV course. The latter followed a

course sequence of Methods I (micro), Methods II (mezzo [family]), Methods III (mezzo

[group]), and Methods IV (macro [community and organizations]). The next discrepant

case was identified as a Methods II course but followed the content of a Methods III

course (macro). A fourth discrepant case was identified as a Methods I course but

included both practice with individuals (micro) as well as concepts for families and

groups (mezzo). The final discrepant case was identified as a Methods III course that

followed the content of Methods II (mezzo). The discrepant cases encountered during the

data analysis were identified by classifying the syllabus’s lack of similarity with the

standard practice level courses I, II, and III. The content within the discrepant syllabi was

consistent with the rest of the sample but used different labeling and was therefore

deemed discrepant in the study. None of the discrepant cases were found to create

problems in the data analysis and were factored into the analysis in keeping with the

content of the material.

Evidence of Trustworthiness

Lincoln and Guba (1985) identified four criteria to judge qualitative research

design to ensure trustworthiness of results: credibility, transferability, dependability, and

confirmability. The credibility of qualitative inquiries relies on the internal validity to

ensure the study measures what it actually intended. Krippendorff and Craggs (2016)

maintained that structured procedures involving human coders are necessary to

demonstrate how units of analysis are categorized. Strategies compatible with the design,

instrument, and data contribute to increased validity (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). I used an

Excel spreadsheet to identify and label data from 19 CSWE-accredited universities in the

Southeast region of the United States. I used digital and hard copies to augment data

collection for the establishment of categories and subcategories as procedural guides to

analyze the data (see Saldana, 2016). I found this strategy advantageous for continuity of

data. I incorporated a second method to include the CSWE (2015) matrix for

undergraduate social work programs to repeat patterns of observation. These procedures

contributed to credibility.

Transferability in qualitative research can be realized in the context of a setting

because the transferability of the findings can aide in understanding the results and

applying them outside the sample (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). The transferability strategies

that I implemented included adherence to ethical research standards and practices for the

inclusion of 51 relevant syllabi. The findings of this qualitative study are unique in that

they do not represent a large population, but rather 51 undergraduate social work course

syllabi from 19 CSWE-accredited universities in the Southeast region of the United

States. The data collection process may not be useful for others because this study was

specific to the Southeast region of the United States and included documents and

instruments via the approval granted by authorized site representatives. I used Dedoose to

analyze the data to strengthen the transferability of the study.

Dependability is essential in qualitative research studies. According to Ravitch

and Carl (2016), reliability in qualitative research is contingent on how the researcher

strategically collects data. As the sole data collector for this study, I engaged in repeated

reviews of the Excel spreadsheet and the CSWE (2015) matrix to align the two research

questions with data gathering, coding, and analysis. Upon recognition that two terms for

dimensions (ethics and cognitive effective and processes) and two terms for course

content (case study and quizzes) were missing, a second person was notified to ensure

reliability. My university colleague’s independent review resulted in 100% agreement

with my original conclusions. This strategy was used to mitigate the potential concerns

associated with interrater coding. This strategy helped with accountability for effective

processes to safeguard dependability.

Confirmability refers to data stabilization in ways in which qualitative researchers

deal with self-regulation amid subjectivity (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). As a member of the

academic community, I was mindful of the relationship in many aspects of the study at

the outset. I implemented two strategies to counteract potential bias. One strategy was

regular consultation with trusted colleagues to help me identify and eliminate possible

subjectivity. The second strategy was a memo function in Dedoose where I recorded my

thoughts throughout the coding and categorizing process. As expected, the data in the

course syllabi were concise, which helped to mitigate bias with data collection and

analysis. An additional strategy, not discussed in Chapter 3, included the review of the

required textbooks that were listed in the sample syllabi. As a member of the academic

community, I registered in VitalSource and gained access to textbooks listed in the

sample syllabi. This strategy enhanced my objective approach to reviewing table of

contents in the required textbooks to verify ethics-infused content in readings.

Results

Fifty-one course syllabi were analyzed in this qualitative study to examine the

inclusion of ethics education within CSWE-accredited undergraduate social work

programs.

Research Question 1

The first research question addressed the manner in which CSWE competency 1

and the five practice behaviors were represented in CSWE-accredited undergraduate

social work practice courses within the sample of private and public institutions in the

southeast region of the U.S. Thirty-six syllabi used explicit competency 1 and practice

behavior language; those 36 are reflected in RQ1 results. A synopsis of data related to

RQ1 is located in Appendix F.

Pattern 1: Overall Representation of CSWE Competency 1 and Practice Behaviors

This pattern is defined as the representation of competency 1 and all five practice

behaviors related to course level. Of the 51 sample syllabi, 36 demonstrated application

of CSWE competency 1 and practice behaviors. CSWE competency 1 and practice

behaviors were represented across all three courses; methods of social work practice I, II,

and III. This may be significant because CSWE’s first competency is accompanied by

value-laden language to guide ethical practice at the micro, mezzo, and macro levels.

Competency 1 Representation

Table 1 demonstrates the frequency and percent representation of competency 1

in social work methods I, II, and III courses.

Table 1

Frequency of Competency I Reflected in Methods Courses

Methods

course level

Frequency

Percentage

Methods I

44%

Methods II

36%

Methods III

19%

Higher frequency is demonstrated in Methods I and the relevance may be seen

there as the purpose of the course is to introduce students to generalist practice at the

micro level. Methods II typically emphasizes generalist practice with families and groups

at the mezzo level. Although competency 1 was represented less frequently in Methods

III syllabi, this may be an indication that the competency has been emphasized in the

prerequisites and so requires less direct attention related to macro practice.

Practice Behavior Representation

Table 2 demonstrates the total frequency representation of the five practice

behaviors.

Table 2

Total Frequency of Practice Behaviors

Practice

behaviors (PB)

Frequency

PB 1

PB 2

PB 3

PB 4

PB 5

The frequency for PB 1 and PB 2 were the same. This may be relevant as those

PBs most directly align to standards in the NASW Code of Ethics and self-awareness.

The highest code count was represented in PB 3. The significance of this may be viewed

in light of the expected actions for professional behavior. Although the count for PB 4

was somewhat lower, this may be viewed as developing along with the rise of new

technology in contemporary social work practice. Finally, PB 5 demonstrated the lowest

frequency. This may be related to the larger context that students have yet to begin their

practicums or internships but use supervision and other resources in classroom settings

and service-learning environments.

Pattern 2: Competency 1 and Practice Behaviors in Course Content

Pattern two reflects competency 1 and practice behaviors as seen in course

content. The course content was applicable to ethics across all three practice courses and

included: (a) readings; (b) assignments; (c) modules; (d) case studies; (e) exams; (f) class

activity; and (g) service learning. Table 3 shows frequencies related to how sample

syllabi included ethics material into course content.

Table 3

Frequency of Inclusion of Ethics Material

Course content

Frequency

Readings

Assignments

Modules

Case studies

Exams

Class activities

Service learning

Readings related to ethics content in sample syllabi were identified through

examination of the weekly course schedule. The representation of ethics content was

verified in each of the required textbooks via the table of contents using VitalSource

(www.bookshelf.vitalsource.com).

Assignments were vastly represented in all practice level courses. Two specific

assignments relevant to ethics in methods I courses included: (a) fellow student

interviews; and (b) biopsychosocial spiritual assessments. Fellow student interviews

included 5-30-minute video recordings for analysis of professional boundaries through

self-reflection and self-regulation to address personal biases. Peer interviews also

included a requirement to exhibit NASW (2017) Code of Ethics during interviews.

Biopsychosocial spiritual assessments included opportunities for students to identify a

model for ethical decision-making in micro practice. Emphasis focused on ensuring

informed consent during biopsychosocial spiritual assessments. An example of

instructions related to peer interviews was:

Students are to interview a fellow student while being videotaped. Approximately

7-10 minutes in length. These are not clinical interviews. The focus of the

interview is to get to know the interviewee while practicing your interviewing

skills. Be sure to ensure confidentiality for the interviewee.

The inclusion of ethics in the instructions for the biopsychosocial spiritual

assessments suggested:

recording the Bio-Psycho-Social-Spiritual Assessment: 1. Student will select a

client who will consent to the assessment and recording by signing the appropriate

form, 2. Informed Consent form is signed by the client and witnessed by the

student, 3. Client can be a friend, family etc. Client will be reading from a script

written by the student. Client will not be graded, 4. Script must cover the four

domains and demonstrate the use of generalist intervention model when

conducting a Bio-Psycho-Social, Spiritual Assessment.

It is important to note that emphasis was placed on non-clinical interviews to

maintain a focus on generalist practice and confidentiality. Another noteworthy point was

the step-by-step process that guided the student’s ethical decision-making to ensure

consent for service.

Assignments relevant to ethics content in methods II courses included: (a) family

assessments; (b) family genograms; (c) ecomaps; (d) ecograms; and (e) family images;

and (f) papers. An array of assignments applicable to working with families are critically

important because students come from different backgrounds and today’s family

composition will vary. However, ethical obligations are not optional. Group assignments

included the following: (a) group designs; (b) group presentations; (c) reflections journal;

(d) process recordings; (f) group simulations; and (g) analysis papers. An example of

competency 1 inclusion in assignments was: “the purpose of these journals is for the

student to discuss something that has contributed to their self-awareness . . . As

demonstrated by: Ability to reflect upon personal values and how they may bias

practice.” Another instruction indicated “the paper describes the prevention interventions

that enhanced client capacities, and how to solve problems – Apply two NASW Code of

Ethics,” while another required the student to “understand and demonstrate, through

group simulation and observation, how values and ethics are applied to group practice.”

Assignments related to ethics content in methods III syllabi included: (a) grant

proposals; (b) community action projects; (c) neighborhood assessments; (d) papers; (e)

presentations; (f) program development and evaluation; and (g) ethics assignment. These

assignments are relevant because they focus on macro practice that encompass ethical

decision-making. One example of a community assessment with an agency as a case

included the requirement of “exploring existing or possible ethical issues that arise from

this case.”

Class activity-related ethics content in methods I courses included: (a) active

learning exercise; (b) recorded interviews for acting out scenarios; (c) PowerPoint

presentations; (d) Mindtap activities (a digital learning platform of Cengage publishers

where students are given access to web content related to specific texts); (e) videos; and

(f) ethics exercise. One example for ethics activities/exercises included:

This exercise highlights conflict between client and worker over the best

intervention for an identified problem. As the worker, your recommendation is

based upon sound research and the most up-to-date information available. The

client’s decision is based upon questionable judgment and inaccurate information.

As in the other exercises, your opinion of what should be done will need to be

guided by the Code of Ethics and the ethical principles screen ETHICS for U.

Another example involved the use of Mindtap.

Mindtap Activities (Competencies – 1[B3-B4]) Students are required to complete

the activities associated with chapters 3, 4, 9, 10, 14, & 15. Students are required

to complete the video activity associated with each chapter. The activities

reinforce knowledge gained from the readings and allow students to practice

recalling and relating the information to chapter materials. The activities allow

students to demonstrate ethical decision making, use reflection and utilize

technology in an ethical and appropriate manner.

Class activity-related to ethics content in methods II sample syllabi included: (a)

video recorded role-plays; (b) group movie proposals; (c) presentations; and (d) avatar-

based role-plays. An example included the use of simulation to apply ethics content:

Using avatar simulation (Mursion) this activity engages students on how to

effectively terminate a group, apply NASW (2017) Code of Ethics, conduct a

process evaluation of a group, and various approaches to evaluating the outcome

of a group in social work practice.

This is an indication of technological advances for teaching ethics in undergraduate social

work courses to prepare students for group work prior to field practice.

Class activity related to ethics content in methods III sample syllabi included: (a)

small group reflection activities; (b) PowerPoint presentations; and (c) community action

projects; and (d) community data gathering. One unique way ethics content was included

in a practice III course comprised the acts of forming small groups to prepare students to

engage in a social change project. For example, instructions included: “Forming Your

Groups – This is where you will form your group for the social change project.” And

“Identifying ethical data collection and management in work with communities and

groups.”

Specific modules related to ethics content in sample syllabi across all three course

levels included: (a) peer discussions; (b) self-reflections related to ethics; (c) and

discussion boards that involved tasks via virtual learning. Modules also focused on

individuals and family dynamics as well as an array of ethical dilemma within

communities and organizations.

Traditional approaches for case studies related to ethics content were represented

throughout all course levels. However, due to limited content in sample syllabi, the

specifics of case studies were seldom identified, and the analysis of ethical dilemmas

were noted in a broad range. Nevertheless, contemporary issues related to ethics

obligations with older adults and those involved in the child welfare system were

identified. Likewise, exams-related to ethics content in sample syllabi focused on (a)

ethics related to textbook chapter readings; (b) case studies; (c) case analysis reflection;

and (d) the inclusiveness of the NASW Code of Ethics. It is worth noting that weekly

course schedules aligned chapters readings related to ethics to mid-terms and final exams.

Service learning related to ethics content in sample syllabi primarily focused on

mezzo and macro level practice and included: (a) treatment group observations; (b) town

hall meetings; and (c) community events. Other service-learning practice activities were

at the discretion of the professor or instructor, but the specific content was not

consistently revealed in the sample syllabi.

Pattern 3: Dimensions of Competency 1 Represented in Course Content

Pattern three is defined in terms of which dimensions of competency 1 were

represented in course content. Dimensions were represented across all three practice

course levels. The dimensions for demonstrating the development of competency 1 are:

(a) knowledge; (b) values; (c) skills; (d) cognitive and affective processes; (e) ethics; (f)

ability; and (g) awareness. Table 4 provides frequencies and percentages related to

representation of the dimensions of competency 1 and practice behaviors in the sample

syllabi.

Table 4

Dimensions Definitions, Frequency, and Percentage of Syllabi for Research Question 1

Dimension

Brief definition

Methods

level

Frequency

Percentage

Knowledge

Facts related to

knowledge needed

for ethical decision-

making in

generalist practice.

III

42%

36%

19%

Values

Professional values

aligned with the

NASW Code of

Ethics.

III

44%

36%

19%

Skills

Skills related to

ethical decision-

making in

generalist practice.

III

39%

33%

19%

Cognitive and

affective processes

Critical thinking,

affective reactions,

and exercise of

judgement

III

22%

19%

14%

Ethics

Ethics directly

informed by the

EPAS/NASW Code

of Ethics.

III

28%

19%

Ability

Demonstrate the

ability to

communicate

information

effectively.

III

11%

14%

Awareness

Aware of personal

values and biases to

increase self-

awareness.

III

14%

Research Question 2

The second research question addressed how ethics content is infused in CSWE-

accredited undergraduate social work practice courses at private and public institutions in

the southeast region of the U.S. Syllabi used to answer RQ2 were differentiated from

those used to answer RQ1 based on language. Of the total sample (N=51), 15 syllabi

infused ethics content but the specific connection between competency 1 and practice

behavior language was not obvious in the syllabi. Therefore, these 15 syllabi were

analyzed to answer RQ2. A synopsis of data related to RQ2 is located in Appendix G.

Pattern 1: EIC in Methods of Social Work Practice Courses

This pattern is defined as the representation of EIC related to course level. Of the

51 sample syllabi, 15 demonstrated application of EIC and was represented across all

three courses; methods of social work practice I, II, and III. This may be significant

because EIC increased at micro, mezzo, and macro levels.

EIC Representation

Table 5 demonstrates the frequency and percent representation of EIC in social

work methods I, II, and III courses.

Table 5

Frequency of EIC in Methods Courses

Methods

course level

Frequency

Percentage

Methods I

27%

Methods II

33%

Methods III

40%

Pattern 2: Course Content for EIC

Pattern two is defined as the corresponding aspects of course content

demonstrated through infusion. The course content was applicable across all three

practice levels and represented through: (a) readings; (b) assignments; (c) modules; (d)

case studies; (e) exam; (f) quizzes; (g) class activity; and (h) service learning.

Frequencies are provided in Table 6 followed by a discussion of the content and selected

examples.

Table 6

Frequency of EIC Material

Course content

Frequency

Readings

Assignments

Modules

Case studies

Exam

Quizzes

Class activities

Service learning

Readings related to ethics infused content was verified in each of the required

textbooks via the table of contents using VitalSource (www.bookshelf.vitalsource.com).

Three of the most commonly used textbooks in micro, mezzo, and macro courses,

respectively, were:

1. Lowenburg, F. M. & Dolgoff, R. (2012). Ethical decisions for social work

practice (9th ed.). F. E. Peacock Publishers;

2. Corey, M. S., Corey, G., & Corey, C. (2014). Group: Process and practice

(10th ed.). Brooks/Cole;

3. Kirst-Ashman, K. K., & Hull, G. H. (2014). Generalist practice with

organizations and communities (6th ed.). Brooks/Cole.

Emphasis focused on ethics were outlined in the weekly course schedules that aligned

with chapter readings to ensure continuity.

Assignments related to ethics infused content were represented in all practice

level courses encompassing micro, mezzo and macro. The assignments relevant to ethics

in practice I courses included: (a) biopsychosocial history and treatment plan; (b)

biopsychosocial spiritual history; and (c) interviews; and (d) papers. An example of

ethics-infused assignments included:

biopsychosocial and treatment plan using themselves as the client. The purpose of

the biopsychosocial history assignment . . . is for students to . . . demonstrate an

understanding of the core concepts of generalist social work practice, . . . identify

the basis for intervention and prevention, . . . demonstrate the ability to

communicate information effectively, . . . become more aware of personal values

and biases to increase self -awareness.

Another instruction indicated, “demonstrate professional boundaries when recording

personal information.”

Assignments related to ethics infused content for methods II courses included: (a)

attend community group meetings; (b) presentations; (c) interviews; (d) small group

presentations; (e) reflection papers; (f) small group co-leader); and (g) family

assessments. The ethics infused instructions for group observations suggested:

a 3-page typewritten summary of each observation experience. Papers must

include: challenges in arranging an observation, group type, specific purpose,

number of participants, location . . . facilitator information and credentials, . . .

stage of development . . . summary . . . interaction (while maintaining

confidentiality), diversity noticed among group members, a discussion of your

own personal biases . . . discussion of professional value conflicts or ethical

dilemmas that might arise.

Emphasis focused on ethics in group formation included aspects of privacy, cultural

diversity, cultural humility and self-reflections for group intervention.

Assignments related to ethics infused content for methods III courses included:

(a) community indicator data; (b) agency/service assessment; (c) grant proposals; (d)

papers; and (e) attend a community meeting. These assignments are relevant because they

focus on community data gathering, agency interactions, and human and fiscal resources

for grant proposal that encompass ethical decision-making. An example included the use

of grant writing to infuse ethics content:

Students will research and investigate opportunities that enhance or promote the

need for an assigned program and then write a grant proposal that will be

submitted in writing and presented to a mock grant determination panel. Included

will be identified plan of assessment and evaluation. Also included will be actions

needed to achieve organizational or community goals of the grant. Deal with

ethical issues related to diversity utilizing professional standards and ethics in

evaluating one’s practice.

Another example involved the use of grant writing.

Prepare a proposal for grant funding by responding to a mock ‘Request for

Proposal’ issued by a Philanthropic Foundation. . . . All participation in the course

must be in accordance with the principles and standards of conduct contained in

the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics.

Modules related to ethics infused content in sample syllabi for courses I and III

included: (a) peer discussions; (b) discussion boards; (c) YouTube clips; (d) vignettes;

and (e) videos. An example for instructions included: “Online Discussions with Peer

Responses.” “The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics will

be followed.”

Another example involved the use of modules.

In this module, we will review the NASW Code of Ethics and how it applies to

organizations and communities. We will use ethical reasoning strategies to help

guide ethical decision making. Together we will appraise a range of Macro ethical

dilemmas and propose viable options to address these difficulties.

Exams related to ethics infused content in practice courses I, II, and III for mid-

terms and final exams included: (a) traditional academic exams; (b) final projects; (c)

final presentations; (d) a combination of both final projects and presentations; and final

analysis papers. An example for ethics infused exams indicated: “Mid-terms and final

exams will cover assigned readings, videotapes and handouts.” Of note is that the

example described included NASW Code of Ethics/values in the weekly course schedule.

This implies that ethics education was presented to students from the beginning to the end

of the course.

Case studies related to ethics infused content in practice courses I and II included

cases that concentrated on issues from child welfare to older adults. An example using

case studies to infuse ethics indicated:

Students will be assisted in the beginning development of such skills as self-

awareness, personal values, communication, observation, building a professional

helping relationship, assessment, planning intervention, understanding of impact

of personal belief system on practice, for the purpose of evidence-based practice,

identification of ethical conflicts and ability to use ethical decision-making model,

evaluation and termination.

Another example involved the use of case study.

Process case study psychosocial, focusing on evaluation of family and community

dynamics. Make ethical decisions by applying standards of the National

Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics and, as applicable, of the

International Federation of Social Workers/International Association of Schools

of Social Work Ethics in Social Work, Statement of Principles.

Quizzes related to ethics infused content in practice courses I, II, and II included

traditional and non-traditional approaches. An example included the use of short quizzes

to apply ethics content:

Learning Checks: Three learning check assignments (multiple choice and short

answer) will be given to students throughout the semester covering only required

reading material posted in the syllabus. Lectures throughout the course focus on

required reading material. Learning checks are designed for students to

demonstrate a general foundation to working with individuals, families, groups,

organizations, and communities. Each learning check is valued at a maximum of

10 points. The quizzes were aligned with required readings in the textbook that

coved ethics to streamline the information.

Class activities relevant to ethics infused content in methods II and III courses

included: (a) in-class activities; (b) culturally sensitive videos; (c) small group activities;

and (d) role plays. An example, instructions included:

In a small group, you will be assigned an ethical dilemma. Using the steps in

addressing ethical decision making, work with your group in finding the best

solution to the problem. Remember, ethical dilemmas are not black and white. A

resolution may not always meet everyone’s standards. Instead, it should align

with the social work profession, moral duties, and obligations.

Service learning related to ethics infused content in practice courses I and III

included community service-learning projects. An example for instruction included:

Students are required to arrange to visit an agency in the community and, for 15

hours, shadow a staff member who has a BSW and/or MSW who is involved in

case work and/or group work. Apply social work ethical principles to guide

professional practice.

Another example involved the use of service-learning project.

Complete a community service-learning project. Students will work in groups to

complete a short-term community service project, working in collaboration with

an agency or organization in our community. The project will be completed in a

step-by-step planned and orderly process which will be discussed in lecture and

class discussions.

In summary, pattern two represented the infusion of ethics across all three

courses and eight content areas. The EIC consisted of traditional and non-

traditional approaches to teaching ethical decision-making to undergraduate social

work students in preparation for field practice. The commonly used textbooks

included ethics content to augment weekly class material. The NASW Code of

Ethics was consistently emphasized in the 15 sample syllabi.

Pattern 3: Dimensions for EIC

Pattern three is defined in terms of differences with which dimensions of ethics

infused content is represented in course content. The following included: (a) knowledge;

(b) skills; (c) values; (d) cognitive and affective processes; (e) ethics; (f) ability; and (g)

awareness. Table 7 provides dimension definitions, frequencies and percentages related

to representation EIC content in the sample syllabi.

Table 7

Dimensions Definitions, Frequency, and Percentage of Syllabi for Research Question 2

Dimension

Brief definition

Methods

level

Frequency

Percentage

Knowledge

Facts related to knowledge

needed for ethical decision-

making in generalist

practice.

III

27%

33%

Values

Professional values aligned

with the NASW Code of

Ethics.

III

27%

Skills

Skills related to ethical

decision-making in

generalist practice.

III

27%

33%

Cognitive

and

affective

processes

Critical thinking, affective

reactions, and exercise of

judgement

III

.7%

Ethics

Ethics directly informed by

the EPAS/NASW Code of

Ethics.

III

27%

Ability

Demonstrate the ability to

communicate information

effectively.

III

13%

Awareness

Aware of personal values

and biases to increase self-

awareness.

III

13%

Summary

The research examined how CSWE competency 1 and the five practice behaviors

are represented in CSWE-accredited undergraduate social work practice courses at

private and public institutions in the southeast region of the United States. Of 51 total

syllabi, 36 syllabi were used to answer RQ1 and indicated that competency 1 had the

highest frequency (n=16) of infusion in the Methods I practice sample syllabi, followed

by a slightly less frequency (n=13), in Methods II, and the lowest frequency (n=7), in

Methods III sample syllabi. This is relevant because it may signify that competency 1

was emphasized more in practice I and II and less emphasis in practice III.

The results for the five PBs represented different frequencies in some aspects, and

the same in others. For example, PB 1 and PB 2 represented equal frequencies (n=23).

However, PB 3 indicated the highest frequency (n=25), followed by PB 4 with less

frequency (n=14), and lastly, PB 5 indicated the lowest frequency (n=13). The relevance

may indicate that the first two PBs are closely aligned with the ethical decision-making

process in relation to gaining self-awareness to maintain professionalism in social work

practice. The relevance to the third PB may indicate a central focus for ongoing

observable professional behaviors. The relevance of the last two PBs may indicate the

increasing challenges with ethical use of technology in relation to practice outcomes

through supervision and consultation.

The research also examined how ethics content is infused in CSWE-accredited

undergraduate social work practice courses at private and public institutions in the

southeast region of the United States. Of 51 syllabi, 15 sample syllabi were used to

answer RQ2 and indicated the lowest frequency (n=4) of infusion in the Methods I

practice sample syllabi, but higher a frequency (n=5), in Methods II, and the highest

frequency (n=6) in Methods III sample syllabi. Unlike the frequency patterns described in

the previous section, the opposite patterns occurred when EPAS competency language

was not used. The relevance may indicate that the infusion of ethics is more prominent in

Methods III sample syllabi (macro-focused), followed by Methods II (mezzo- focused),

and then Methods I practice (micro-focused). The course content for EIC results indicate

assignments (n=21), class activities (n=14), readings (n=11), services learning (n=9),

exam (n=8), case studies (n=6), quizzes (n=5), and modules (n=3). The relevance may

indicate the manner in which ethics is infused in course content.

Chapter 5 presents the interpretation of the findings, limitations, and

recommendations for future studies on content analysis of ethics curriculum requirements

in undergraduate social work programs, and implications for positive social change.

Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

The purpose of the study was to examine ethics content in the syllabi of practice

courses at CSWE-accredited undergraduate social work programs in the Southeast region

of the United States. The nature of the study was a content analysis of 51 syllabi. The

study was conducted to identify the integration or infusion of ethics curriculum in

CSWE-accredited undergraduate social work programs. There were two key findings

from the study:

1. BSW programs in this study demonstrated frequent representation of CSWE

Competency 1 and PBs related to ethics content in methods courses, with the

highest frequency occurring in Methods 1; even programs that did not have

language specific to Competency 1 or the PBs had a significant infusion of

ethics content.

2. BSW programs in this study most frequently represented Competency 1 and

PBs 3, 1, 2, 4 and 5 (in order of representation) and infused-ethics content

through course readings, assignments, class activities, and case studies.

Interpretation of the Findings

Although some peer-reviewed research regarding ethics education in CSWE-

accredited social work programs was identified, most research had been conducted on

ethics education in graduate programs. Fossen et al. (2014) noted the importance of an

ethical decision-making model, known as the ETHICA model (Congress 1999, 2000), in

undergraduate social work programs. The current study’s findings demonstrated that it

may be easier to apply Competency 1 and practice behaviors at the generalist practice

level (individual and family/group). The findings may also suggest that less attention is

given to Competency 1 and practice behaviors once students have moved beyond the first

two stages of generalist practice (individual and family/group). Students may translate

Methods I content to the other practice levels without additional focus on ethics. Further,

the findings demonstrated that teaching methods for infusing the ethics content are used.

Active learning activities such as case studies, class activities, and service learning were

frequently demonstrated.

As mentioned in the literature review, there was limited research on ethics

education in undergraduate social work programs; therefore, the literature review was

expanded to include three other social science disciplines: psychology, counseling

education, and nursing. Like social work, these disciplines have professional

accreditation standards to guide ethical decision-making for students and practitioners.

For example, in references to approaches, content, and methods for including ethics

education in their accredited programs, the literature showed that the psychology

discipline is challenged with where to include ethics in their curricula (Barber & Bagsby,

2012; You et al., 2018), but indicated ethics content in assignments and books (Griffith et

al., 2014). For counselor education, ethical decision-making models are used to infuse

ethics content to enhance student learning for professional development (Sanabria &

Murray, 2018), and reflective writing assignments to enhance cognitive complexities via

ethics education (Kimball & Daniel, 2020). However, ethics related to gatekeeping was

noted as a challenge with the counselor education’s lack of support to doctoral-level

students (M. C. Rapp et al., 2018). Nursing education faces challenges with educating

nurses, including psychiatric nurses, on identifying ethical dilemmas upon graduating

from nursing programs (Chao et al., 2017; Park, 2012). However, a stand-alone nursing

ethics course offered a modern-day approach to teach ethics including effectiveness

measures (Chao et al., 2017).

It was not surprising to learn about the challenges of professional ethics faced by

three other disciplines. Reamer (2020) echoed similar concerns within human services,

including but not limited to the aforementioned disciplines, and further noted the

importance of teaching professional ethics in academia. The current study extended

knowledge in the social work discipline by providing qualitative data and analysis

regarding how ethics is represented and infused in the course content of Methods I, II,

and III practice courses in CSWE-accredited undergraduate social work programs. The

literature confirmed CSWE’s ongoing commitment to enhancing the social work

curriculum, specifically in a practice course (Hines, 2004) and the use of content analysis.

The current study’s findings aligned with the theoretical framework of common

morality theory (see Gert, 1998). The findings reflected this theory’s context, which is

based on a moral system and rational assumptions of individuals. In this case,

undergraduate social work students have a natural tendency to reduce harm to others

(Gert, 1998), a focus found to be included in their education for generalist social work

practice. Common morality theory (see Lundgren, 2015) also helped guide the study

using the language in Competency 1, the five PBs, and EIC, per CSWE (2015) mandates.

CSWE (2015) Competency 1 requires students to understand and demonstrate ethical and

professional behavior at the graduate and undergraduate levels. As such, the rational

assumption (Gert, 1998) is that BSW students have the propensity to understand and

recognize the value base of the social work profession and adhere to ethical decision-

making with individuals, families or groups, communities, and organizations to reduce

harm.

The current study’s findings also aligned with the theoretical framework of

curriculum theory (see Lundgren, 2015). The findings reflected this theory’s context,

which is based on goals, aspects of knowledge, and the selection and organization of

knowledge through historical constructs. The application of curriculum theory helped

guide the study’s findings on how ethics content was represented and infused in 51

sample syllabi using content analysis that paralleled CSWE’s historical efforts with

standards for curriculum policy (see Hines, 2004), all of which led to curriculum

development for today’s generalist practice.

Limitations of the Study

There were five limitations to this study. First, the sample size was limited to 51

sample syllabi. The results cannot be generalized to other contexts beyond the 19 colleges

and universities in the 10 states within the Southeast region of the United States.

Additionally, some schools in the sample used simulation, a web-based digital learning

platform, and community indicator data to infuse ethics content; these aspects may

differentiate the sample even further. Second, I used content analysis, which did not

allow for clarifications or follow-up questions related to the content. Third, I focused

only on Methods I, II, and III practice courses; therefore, the study did not represent

ethics in other undergraduate social work courses. According to the literature,

gerontology, criminal justice, and human services courses often include ethics content

(Camp et al., 2018; Mackey & Levan, 2019; Wark et al., 2019). Fourth, I included only

Competency 1, but ethics education can also be infused using other competencies per

CSWE (2015) mandates; these could include Competency 2 on diversity, Competency 4

on practice-informed research, and Competency 5 on policy. Fifth, I did not include any

discrete or stand-alone ethics courses in this study.

Recommendations for Future Research

Given NASW’s (2017) emphasis on ethics and CSWE (2015) mandates, further

research is needed to understand better how ethics is infused in undergraduate social

work programs. Although some research had been conducted on ethics education in

CSWE-accredited graduate social work programs, there was little empirical evidence on

CSWE-accredited undergraduate social work programs. Research including a larger and

more representative throughout the United States would be beneficial. Research

identifying how often programs use a discrete course approach versus infusion or a mixed

approach to teach ethics content would also provide useful knowledge. Future research

could also provide guidance on the efficacy of providing ethics content across the three

teaching approaches to support program development. A final recommendation for future

research includes confirming each program’s accreditation year on the CSWE public

website. This confirmation would help clarify the broadly defined language regarding

competencies and practice behaviors in the sample syllabi.

Implications

There are three ways to examine the implications for positive social change. The

first is through the lens of higher education. The second is through generalist social work

practice at the individual, family, organizational, and societal/policy levels. The third is

through conducting social work research that contributes to the ethics education.

Social Work Education

Including ethics content in Methods I, II, and III practice level courses could

advance the social work profession to improve ethical decision-making on the individual,

family/group, community, and organization levels. BSW program administrators could

use the study’s findings in four ways. First, administrators could ensure ethics content

infusion is consistently represented across Methods I, II, and III practice courses. Second,

administrators could use the results of PB 4 that showed a low frequency rate to increase

the likelihood of ethical use of technology amid rising concerns in the profession

(Reamer, 2018), and PB5 that showed the lowest frequency as an indication to either

confirm or enhance course content amid growing concerns related to boundary violations

in human services (Reamer, 2020). Third, administrators could ensure the dimensions of

cognitive and affective processes are consistently included in syllabi to develop

Competency 1 and be mindful of low frequency rates with ethics, ability, and awareness.

Regarding EIC, the study’s findings could be used to affirm ethics infusion in

Methods III courses to help students prepare for contemporary social work complexities

at the community, organizational, and policy levels. However, the lower frequency rates

for EIC in Methods I and II courses could serve as an opportunity for BSW program

administrators to work collaboratively with their full-time faculty, adjunct faculty, and

others involved with curriculum enhancements to ensure a balance of ethics infusion for

generalist practice across methods level (individual, family, group, community, and

organization). Faculty members could find ways to teach ethics content that addresses

different learning styles to make content relevant and available to all students (Childs-

Kean et al., 2020). Giving students opportunities to place themselves in a professional

position and practice decision-making skills, which entails applying ethical standards, is a

positive learning experience (L. Rapp & Anyikwa, 2016). Regarding educational policy

implications, the CSWE may use the study’s findings to assist BSW program faculty with

using a standardized matrix to illustrate competencies, specific PB, and dimensions to

align ethics course content.

Social Work Practice

Practice recommendations include recognizing the need to make ethics education

a priority for students’ preparedness in generalist practice amid a rapidly changing and

complex society. Ethics education may support positive social change through ongoing

assessment of Competency 1, PBs, and dimensions for student preparedness at micro,

mezzo, and macro levels. The NASW could use these findings to highlight the

importance of the field instructors’ role to ensure the continuity of ethics education in

professional practice. BSW-level practitioners are often employed in practice settings

fraught with ethical dilemmas such as child welfare, older adults, and criminal justice

(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018). These job placement realities make ethics content in

BSW education even more critical.

Social Work Research

The implications for using a qualitative methodology, including content analysis,

aligned with common morality theory (Gert, 1998) and curriculum theory (Lundgren,

2015) may address the gap in empirical evidence for this phenomenon. Content analysis

aligned with both theories in that the common morality theory described values and

ethics of a moral system within U.S. society that depends on the rational assumption that

people are imperfect but also have the potential to reduce harm, and curriculum theory

explained how ethics are taught using the five CSWE (2015) practice behaviors that

predicted knowledge and categorization of content in the sample syllabi. This process

may help with student preparedness and could contribute to social change. Further,

Padgett (2017) suggested that additional qualitative research in social work is needed,

similar to the current study. Qualitative research may more closely align with positive

social change because of the inclusion of the voices of marginalized populations.

Conclusions

Social work ethics education must be a priority as the next generation of social

workers is trained. Reamer (2018) noted the commitments of NASW, CSWE, the

Association of Social Work Boards, and the Clinical Social Work Association as a move

in the right direction to address ethical concerns, especially as social workers’ use of

technology increases. Reamer (2020) also expressed more recent concerns about the

importance of education regarding the critical ethical issues surrounding boundary

violations in practice. The current study showed how 19 BSW programs implement

CSWE’s commitment to ethics education in social work practice courses amid changes in

U.S. society. Findings from this study indicated ethics course content in sample syllabi,

including how nine public and 10 private CSWE-accredited colleges and universities

embed ethics content within practice courses in undergraduate social work programs in

the Southeast region of the United States. The study’s findings may be used by program

administrators, social work faculty, and professional social work associations seeking to

ensure bachelor-level social work students are prepared for ethical conduct in social work

practice.

References

American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA code of ethics.

American Nurses Association. (2015). Code of ethics for nurses with interpretive

statements. Nursesbooks.org.

American Psychological Association. (2007). APA guidelines for the undergraduate

psychology major.

Barber, L. K., & Bagsby, P. G. (2012). Beyond Milgram: Expanding research ethics

education to participant responsibilities.

http://teachpsych.org/resources/Documents/otrp/resources/barber12.pdf

Barber, L. K., Bailey, S. F., & Bagsby, P. G. (2015). Improving research participant

ethics: The utility of an online educational module. Teaching of Psychology,

42(2), 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628315573137

Barbera, R., Ward, K., Mama, R., & Averbach, J. (2017). Improving teaching: Training

program for social work adjuncts. Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 22(1),

17–30. https://doi.org/10.18084/1084-7219.22.1.17

Barker, R. L., & Branson, D. M. (2014). Forensic social work: Legal aspects of

professional practice. Routledge.

Black, P. N., Congress, E. P., & Strom-Gottfried, K. (Eds.). (2002). Teaching social work

values and ethics: A curriculum resource. Council on Social Work Education.

Boland-Prom, K., Krcatovich II, M. A., Wagner, S. H., & Gilbert, M. C. (2018). Social

work educators’ evaluations of regulatory boards. Journal of Social Work Values

& Ethics, 15(2), 81–92. https://jswve.org/download/15-2/articles15-2/81-

Evaluation-of-regulatory-boards-JSWVE-15-2-2018-Fall.pdf

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018). Occupational outlook handbook: Social workers. U.S.

Department of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/community-and-social-

service/social-workers.htm

Burian, B. K., & Slimp, A. O. (2000). Social dual-role relationships during internship: A

decision-making model. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31(3),

332–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.31.3.332

Burkemper, J. E., DuBois, J. M., Lavin, M. A., Meyer, G. A., & McSweeney, M. (2007).

Ethics education in MSN programs: A study of national trends. Nursing

Education Perspectives (National League for Nursing), 28(1), 10–17.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17380955/

Burns, S. T. (2019). Students’ ethical decision‐making when considering boundary

crossings with counselor educators. Counseling & Values, 64(1), 53–71.

https://doi.org/10.1002/cvj.12094

Callahan, D., & Bok, S. (1980). The teaching of ethics in higher education. Institute of

Society, Ethics, and the Life Sciences.

Camp, M. E., Jeon-Slaughter, H., Johnson, A. E., & Sadler, J. Z. (2018). Medical student

reflections on geriatrics: Moral distress, empathy, ethics and end of

life. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 39(2), 235–248.

https:// doi.org/ 10.1080/02701960.2017.1391804

Chao, S. -Y., Chang, Y. -C., Yang, S. C., & Clark, M. J. (2017). Development,

implementation, and effects of an integrated web-based teaching model in a

nursing ethics course. Nurse Education Today, 55, 31–37.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.04.011

Childs-Kean, L., Edwards, M., & Smith, M. D. (2020). Use of learning style frameworks

in health science education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical

Education, 84(7), 919–927. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7885

Congress, E. P. (1999). Social work values and ethics: Identifying and resolving

professional dilemmas. Thomson.

Congress, E. P. (2000). What social workers should know about ethics: Understanding

and resolving practice dilemmas. Advances in Social Work, 1(1), 1–25.

https://doi.org/10.18060/124

Corey, M. S., Corey, G., & Corey, C. (2014). Group: Process and practice (10th ed.).

Brooks/Cole.

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2016). 2016

standards.

Council on Social Work Education. (2008). Educational policies and accreditation

standards.

Council on Social Work Education. (2015). Educational policies and accreditation

standards.

Council on Social Work Education. (2017). Sample generalist practice curriculum matrix

with 2015 EPAS competencies.

https://cswe.org/CSWE/media/AccredidationPDFs/Sample-Generalist-Practice-

Curriculum-Matrix-pdf.pdf

Dedoose. (2016). What makes Dedoose different? www.dedoose.com

Dolgoff, R., Harrington, D., & Loewenberg, F. M. (2012). Brooks/Cole empowerment

series: Ethical decisions for social work practice. Cengage Learning.

Edwards, B., & Addae, R. (2015). Ethical decision-making models in resolving ethical

dilemmas in rural practice: Implications for social work practice and education.

Journal of Social Work Values & Ethics, 12(1), 88–92.

https://jswve.org/download/2015-1/articles/88-JSWVE-12-1-Rural%20Practice-

Resolving%20Ethical%20Dilemmas.pdf

Englund, T., Forsberg, E., & Sundberg, D. (2012). What counts as knowledge? Views and

insights of curriculum theory into teacher education and schools. Liber.

Florida Social Work Consortium. (n.d.). Florida Social Work Consortium.

https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/childadvocacy/professional

_social_work_consortium.pdf

Fogel, S. J., & Ellison, M. L. (2005). Integrating the lessons of informed consent

throughout the BSW curriculum: Research in practice. Journal of Baccalaureate

Social Work, 10(2), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.18084/1084-7219.10.2.87

Fossen, C. M., Anderson-Meger, J. I., & Zellmer, D. A. D. (2014). Infusing a new ethical

decision-making model throughout a BSW curriculum. Journal of Social Work

Values & Ethics, 11(1), 66–81. https://jswve.org/download/2014-1/articles/8-

JSWVE-11-1-Infusing%20a%20New%20Ethical%20Decision-Making

%20Model%20Throughout%20a%20BSW%20Curriculum-pp%2066-81.pdf

Garity, J. (2009). Fostering nursing students’ use of ethical theory and decision-making

models: teaching strategies. Learning in Health & Social Care, 8(2), 114–122.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-6861.2009.00223.x

Gert, B. (1998). Morality: Its nature and justification. Oxford University Press on

Demand.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development.

Harvard University Press.

Gottlieb, M. C. (1993). Avoiding exploitive dual relationships: A decision-making

model. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 30(1), 41–48.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204.30.1.41

Grady, C., Danis, M., Soeken, K. L., O’Donnell, P., Taylor, C., Farrar, A., & Ulrich, C.

M. (2008). Does ethics education influence the moral action of practicing nurses

and social workers? American Journal of Bioethics, 8(4), 4–11.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15265160802166017

Grason, S. (2020). Teaching ethics in classroom settings: Nursing faculty perceptions in

baccalaureate programs. The Journal of Nursing Education, 59(9), 506–509.

https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20200817-05

Griffith, S. M., Domenech Rodríguez, M. M., & Anderson, A. J. (2014). Graduate ethics

education: A content analysis of syllabi. Training and Education in Professional

Psychology, 8(4), 248–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000036

Griffiths, A., Royse, D., Piescher, K., & LaLiberte, T. (2018). Preparing child welfare

practitioners: Implications for Title IV-E education and training partnerships.

Journal of Public Child Welfare, 12(3), 281–299.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2017.1416325

Groessl, J. (2015). Teaching note―conceptualization of a contemporary social work

ethics course. Journal of Social Work Education, 51(4), 691–698.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2015.1076276

Haemmerlie, F. M., & Matthews, J. R. (1988). Preparing undergraduates for

paraprofessional positions: What, where, when, and how are ethical issues taught?

Teaching of Psychology, 15(4), 192–194.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top1504_3

Harding, J. (2013) Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Sage.

Hartocollis, A. (2020, April 16). Colleges running low on money worry students will

vanish, too. (Cover story). New York Times, 169(58665), A1–A15.

Herlihy, B., & Dufrene, R. L. (2011). Current and emerging ethical issues in counseling:

A Delphi study of expert opinions. Counseling & Values, 56(1/2), 10–24.

https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-007X.2011.tb01028.x

Hines, L. D. (2004). Evolution of group work education in social work [Doctoral

dissertation, University of South Carolina].

Houston-Vega, M. K., & Nuehring, E. M., & Daguio, E. R. (1997). Prudent practice—A

guide for managing malpractice risk. NASW Press.

Kaplan, L. E. (2006). Moral reasoning of MSW social workers and the influence of

education. Journal of Social Work Education, 42(3), 507–522.

https://doi.org/10.5175/JSWE.2006.200404129

Karpman, H. E., & Drisko, J. (2016). Social media policy in social work education: A

review and recommendations. Journal of Social Work Education, 52(4), 398–408.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2016.1202164

Kimball, P., & Daniel, D. (2020). Reflective writing: Enhancing students cognitive

complexity through ethics education. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health,

15(2), 250–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/15401383.2019.1682737

Kirst-Ashman, K. K., & Hull, G. H. (2014). Generalist practice with organizations and

communities (6th ed.). Brooks/Cole.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development. Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Krasen, K. S., & DeLong-Hamilton, T. A. (2015). Preparing social workers as reporters

of suspected child maltreatment. Social Work Education, 34(8), 967–985.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2015.1094047

Krautscheid, L. C. (2017). Embedding microethical dilemmas in high-fidelity simulation

scenarios: Preparing nursing students for ethical practice. Journal of Nursing

Education, 56(1), 55–58. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20161219-11

Krautscheid, L., & Brown, M. (2014). Microethical decision making among

baccalaureate nursing students: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Nursing

Education, 53(3), S19–S25. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20140211-05

Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage.

Krippendorff, K., & Craggs, R. (2016). The reliability of multi-valued coding of data.

Communication Methods and Measures, 10(4), 181–198.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2016.1228863

Landrum, N., & Ohsowski, B. (2017). Content trends in sustainable business education:

an analysis of introductory courses in the USA. International Journal of

Sustainability in Higher Education, 18(3), 385–414.

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2016-0135

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

Linné, A. (2015). Curriculum theory and didactics - towards a theoretical rethinking.

Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2015(1), 31–39.

https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.27002

Lowenburg, F. M. & Dolgoff, R. (2012). Ethical decisions for social work practice (9th

ed.). F. E. Peacock Publishers.

Lundgren, U. P. (2015). What’s in a name? That which we call a crisis? A commentary

on Michael Young’s article ‘Overcoming the crisis in curriculum theory.’ Journal

of Curriculum Studies, 47(6), 787–801.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1095354

Mackey, D. A., & Levan, K. (2019) Moral dilemmas and worst-case scenarios:

Using post-apocalyptic fiction to teach criminal justice ethics. Journal of

Criminal Justice Education, 30(3), 319-332.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2018.1489974

McDonald, D., Boddy, J., O’Callaghan, K., & Chester, P. (2015). Ethical professional

writing in social work and human services. Ethics and Social Welfare, 9(4), 359–

374. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2015.1009481

McLeod-Sordjan, R. (2014). Evaluating moral reasoning in nursing education. Nursing

Ethics, 21(4), 473–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733013505309

Megregian, M., Low, L. K., Emeis, C., de Vries, R., & Nieuwenhuijze, M. (2020). “I’m

sure we talked about it”: Midwives experiences of ethics education and ethical

dilemmas, a qualitative study. Women and Birth: Journal of the Australian

College of Midwives, 33(6), e519–e526.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2019.12.005

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2104). Qualitative data analysis: A

methods sources (3rd ed.). Sage.

Murphy, M. (1959). The social group work method in social work education: A project

report of the curriculum study (Vol XI). Council on Social Work Education.

National Association of Social Workers. (2017). Code of ethics. National Association of

Social Workers.

National Board for Certified Counselors. (2012). Code of ethics. Author.

O’Kane, P., Smith, A., & Lerman, M. P. (2021). Building transparency and

trustworthiness in inductive research through computer-aided qualitative AATA

analysis software. Organizational Research Methods, 24(1), 104–139.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428119865016

Pachkowski, K. S. (2018). Ethical competence and psychiatric and mental health nursing

education. Why? What? How? Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing,

25(1), 60–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpm.12439

Padgett, D. K. (2017). Qualitative methods in social work research (3rd ed.). Sage.

Park, E. J. (2012). An integrated ethical decision-making model for nurses. Nursing

Ethics, 19(1), 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733011413491

Prasad, B. D. (2019). Qualitative content analysis: Why is it still a path less taken?

Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 20(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-

20.3.3392

Pumphrey, M. W. (1961). Transmitting values and ethics through social work practice.

Social Work, 6(3), 68–75. https://doi.org/10.2307/23708161

Rapp, L., & Anyikwa, V. (2016). Active learning strategies and instructor presence in an

online research methods course: Can we decrease anxiety and increase perceived

knowledge? Advances in Social Work, 17(1), 1–14.

https://doi.org/10.18060/20871

Rapp, M. C., Moody, S. J., & Stewart, L. A. (2018). Becoming a gatekeeper:

Recommendations for preparing doctoral students in counselor education.

Professional Counselor, 8(2), 190–199. https://doi.org/10.15241/mcr.8.2.190

Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2016). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual,

theoretical, and methodological. Sage.

Reamer, F. G. (1999). Social work values and ethics (2nd ed.). Columbia University

Press.

Reamer, F. G. (2001). Ethics education in casework. Council on Social Work Education.

Reamer, F. G. (2015). Evolving ethical standards in the digital age. Australian Social

Work, 70(2), 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2016.1146314

Reamer, F. G. (2018). Ethical standards for social workers’ use of technology: Emerging

consensus. Journal of Social Work Values & Ethics, 15(2), 71–80.

https://jswve.org/download/15-2/articles15-2/71-Use-of-technology-JSWVE-15-

2-2018-Fall.pdf

Reamer, F. G. (2020). Boundary issues and dual relationships in the human

services. Columbia University Press.

Reamer, F. G., & Abramson, M. (1982). The teaching of social work ethics. The Hasting

Center.

Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M., & Thoma, S. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking:

A neo-Kohlbergian approach. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, R. R. (2015). Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive

guide to content and process (4th ed.). Sage.

Saldana, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

Sanabria, S., & Murray Jr, T. L. (2018). Infusing human sexuality content and counseling

in counselor education curriculum. American Journal of Sexuality Education,

13(2), 190–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2018.1457461

Sanders, S., & Hoffman, K. (2010). Ethics education in social work: Comparing

outcomes of graduate social work students. Journal of Social Work Education,

46(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.5175/JSWE.2010.200800112

Sayre, M. M., & Sar, B. K. (2015). Social justice in the social work classroom: Applying

a professional value to social work education. Social Work Education, 34(6), 623–

635. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2015.1058353

Schwandt, T. A. (2015). The SAGE dictionary of inquiry (4th ed.). Sage.

Simon, S. R., & Kilbane, T. (2014). The current state of group work education in U.S.

graduate schools of social work. Social Work with Groups, 37(3), 243–256,

https://doi.org/10.1080/01609513.2013.840821

Sweifach, J. (2014). Group work education today: A content analysis of MSW group

work course syllabi. Social Work with Groups, 37(1), 8–22.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01609513.2013.816920

Swenson, E. V. (1983). Incorporating law into the undergraduate psychology curriculum.

Teaching of Psychology, 10(2), 119-120.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top1002_23

Swenson, E. V. (1988). The psychology major as preparation for legal studies and the

legal profession. In Is psychology for them? A guide to undergraduate advising

(pp. 153–155). American Psychological Association.

https://doi.org/10.1037/10556-034

Thompson, J. O., & Thompson, H. E. (1989). Teaching ethics to nursing students.

Nursing Outlook, 37(2), 84–88. https://europepmc.org/article/med/2928141

Townsend, N. (2020). Should Jesus Christ be at the centre of introductions to Christian

ethics? Studies in Christian Ethics, 33(1), 95–106.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0953946819885226

Ulrich, C., O’Donnell, P., Taylor, C., Farrard, A., Danise, M., & Grady, C. (2007).

Ethical climate, ethics stress, and the job satisfaction of nurses and social workers

in the United States. Social Sciences & Medicine, 8, 1708–1719.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.05.050

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2013). Study in the states.

https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/2013/01/what-is-a-public-university-what-is-a-

private-university

Wark, L., Dice, T., Kerewsky, S., & Hudson, T. (2019). Ethics education in human

services: Course context and teaching activities. Journal of Human

Services, 39(1), 143–157. https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/chs_pubs/65

Westbury, I. (2007). Theory and theorizing in curriculum studies. In E. Forsberg (Ed.),

Curriculum theory revisited (Research Reports No. 7, pp. 1–19). Uppsala

University.

Worthley, J. A. (1997). The ethics of the ordinary in healthcare. Health Administration

Press.

You, D., Ruiz, A., & Warchal, J. (2018). The presentation of ethics in undergraduate

psychology syllabi: A review. Teaching of Psychology, 45(4), 346–350.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628318796921

Zeiger, S. J. (2002). A continuing struggle for recognition. In A community honors 50

years of social work education. Council on Social Work Education.

Assignement introduction Content Analysis of Ethics Curriculum Requirements.pdf

Students also viewed