SOK1 Cultural Identity

Journal of Social Work

11(2) 143–158

! The Author(s) 2011

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1468017310386834

jsw.sagepub.com

Article

Equality and fairness: Linking social justice and social work practice

Michael O’Brien Massey University, New Zealand

Abstract

� Summary: Social justice lies at the heart of social work practice and is used by prac-

titioners to describe their practice. That practice is primarily described at the individual

level.

� Findings: Equality and fairness are core aspects of social justice and are drawn on

extensively by social work practitioners in this research project to define social justice

and are reflected in their practice. The two terms are, however, given a range of diverse

meanings by practitioners. Those meanings are translated into and reflected in their

practice.

� Application: There are important implications for social work education, the social

work profession and social work practice in the diverse ways in which the terms are

understood and used.

Keywords

equality, freedom, social inclusion, social work practice, social justice, values

Introduction

In the current social work literature, social work is often described as an occupa- tion/profession that is located at the margins between the included and the excluded (Jordan & Parton, 2004; Lorenz, 2006; Sheppard, 2006). Jordan and Parton (2004) describe the practice as necessarily ambiguous because of that loca- tion. Working at or in or on the margin means that practitioners must be focused in both directions, namely towards both the excluded and the included and must be actively engaged in the relationships, processes and statuses of both. Lister (1997, 2007) talks of citizenship as both a status (services to which you have a right

Corresponding author:

Michael O’Brien, Social Policy and Social Work Programme, Albany Campus, Massey University, Private Bag

102904, North Shore MSC, Auckland 745, New Zealand

Email: [email protected]

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on April 3, 2016jsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

because you are a citizen, frequently involving a legal dimension) and practices (the ways in which individuals are treated in their social and political relationships, the behaviours and discourses which shape their experiences and their lives). It is those statuses and practices which by language and behaviour are critical in defining some people as citizens (full members of the society) and others as not. A brief reflection on the experiences and treatment of indigenous peoples, of refugees and migrants, of disabled people, of women and of children provides clear examples of these discriminations of status and practice. In brief, the included are citizens, the excluded are not. Lorenz (2006, p. 9) captures many elements of this well when he says that:

social work practice, communicatively conceptualised, needs to become the practice of

social policy understood as social citizenship, which means that every intervention

needs to be aimed not just at the resolution of a specific problem encountered at the

individual level, but also at the re-examination and reclaiming of the sets of rights and

obligations that make up the social sphere and which constitute the substance of social

integration.

Social work practice at the margins (or across the divide, given growing inequal- ities) necessitates attending to the excluded and improving their status and chang- ing the practices, that is, the ways in which institutions and institutional practices (defined broadly) operate and affect both the excluded and the included. This part of the practice might, then, involve the practitioner in acting to change institutional rules and procedures to ensure that a client receives the services which are needed (but from which s/he is currently formally excluded) and it might involve wider activities to change both laws which exclude and practices which exclude ideolog- ically. Work with indigenous peoples and with disabled people provides good examples of areas in which a practitioner might be engaged ideologically, challeng- ing public and private beliefs and assumptions. Central to such work is that prac- titioners should engage with and challenge that which excludes/discriminates. (‘Discriminate’ is used here in a wide sense, not just as a narrow, formal legalism.)

Social work can, then, be located at the margin, at the divide between the included and the excluded, with those who are marginalized, the social and indi- vidual forces which create and sustain that marginalization (inclusion and exclu- sion) and with those who also have the capacity and the authority to reduce and/or remove that exclusion and marginalization and its effects. In this sense, then, we might liken the practice of social work to being a bridge and social workers to being those who work on, with and through the means of transport across the bridge and also work in and across the waters flowing under that bridge. Social work is located on the bridge, on both sides of and under the bridge. The bridge metaphor is, of course, limited, but, notwithstanding those limitations, the social work task involves working at, within and across this divide to make crossing the river more manageable and less hazardous and to change the working relationships between the excluded and the included so as to lower and remove the barriers to

144 Journal of Social Work 11(2)

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on April 3, 2016jsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

inclusion and participation, thereby enabling easier and smoother access to and passage across the bridge.

What is it that shapes and informs the practice of the social workers working on the bridge and in and on the water flowing below? The social work literature and social work ethical codes suggest strongly that one of the central components informing that work, perhaps the central component, is social justice, although as Olson (2007) notes, this focus is challenged by the emphasis on professionalism. How, then, do practitioners define and operationalize social justice, for, as Solas (2008) argues, there is certainly no clear definition of what social workers and social work associations mean when they refer to ‘social justice’. In a broad sense, two central ideas permeate the social justice literature, namely equality and fairness. While this simple statement elides many significant and substantial debates about their definition, meaning and application, and in doing so, overlooks substantial debates, one or other, and, commonly, both of these terms appear in the debates within the general social justice literature and across the range of social science disciplines (Boucher & Kelly, 1998; Lundy, 2004; Wolff, 2008).

For present purposes, Craig’s (2002, pp. 671–672) definition reflects the key elements when he defines social justice as:

a framework of political objectives, pursued through social, economic, environmental

and political policies, based on an acceptance of difference and diversity, and

informed by values concerned with: achieving fairness, and equality of outcomes

and treatment; recognising the dignity and equal worth and encouraging the self-

esteem of all; the meeting of basic needs; maximizing the reduction of inequalities

in wealth, income and life chances; and the participation of all, including the most

disadvantaged.

Social work literature, social work history and social work ethical codes all reflect and, in many instances actively draw on the idea of social justice as a central component in social work practice, in many instances as the central component, as reflected in Association Codes of ethics (British Association of Social Workers, n.d.: www.basw.co.uk; US National Association of Social Workers, n.d.: www. socialworkers.org/pubs/code; Australian Association of Social Workers, 1999; Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers, n.d.: www.anzasw.org.nz; Canadian Association of Social Workers, n.d.: www.casw-acts.ca).

The Association statements reflect a similar theme to that which appears in the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) definition of social work when it says:

principles of human rights and social justice are fundamental to social work

(www.ifsw.org).

Acknowledging and agreeing with the argument that social justice is central to social work, this article reports on two connected tasks. The first is to explore how

O’Brien 145

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on April 3, 2016jsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

social workers define and use the term in their daily practice. The second is to explore the application of that definition, that is, the nature of the work involved in facilitating and supporting access to and passage across the bridge (to return to the earlier metaphor). Put another way, what is the link between the practice of social justice and how does the practice change what it means to be a citizen and who is to be included and excluded from citizenship and what is the basis on which that inclusion and exclusion operates.

This article, then, reports on a project in which a sample of members of Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW) were asked to set out their definition of social justice and to describe the application of the idea of social justice in their practice, providing an example from their practice which reflected social justice at work.

1,2 Reflecting aspects of the theoretical liter-

ature referred to above, the article explores the social workers’ range of orienta- tions to the idea of ‘social justice’ and the diverse ways in which they see those ideas being drawn on in their practice, a practice which I am arguing reflects the daily expression of social justice and a practice which seeks to operationalize, extend and enhance citizenship. The research reported here is localized in that it reports on New Zealand data. However, if social justice has an international meaning and application (which the international definition and codes of ethics would indicate) the components of social justice and their translation into practice should be rec- ognizable internationally. There is an interesting and important question for prac- titioners and researchers internationally to explore in their review of the material, namely whether these concepts have meaning in their own country, whether and to what extent the dimensions and emphases of the definitions are mirrored in other countries, the nature of the meanings given to the concepts and the extent of uti- lization and translation, if any, into practice. Of course, these are the practitioners’ descriptions of their own practice. Those descriptions may be understood, expe- rienced and described differently by both outside commentators and users (the preferred term here), but this does not invalidate the practitioners’ own descrip- tions. Rather, their descriptions should be placed alongside those other sets of experiences to build a more comprehensive picture of the nature, meaning and interpretation of social work.

The article begins with a brief description of the sample of participants in the project and the methods used to gather and analyse the information. It then pro- ceeds to a discussion of the practitioners’ definitions of social justice and their application in daily practice, using examples from the participants’ data. The article concludes with reflections on the implications of that daily practice for social work as an occupation and for its development.

The research project

The participants were asked to provide information on their current employment, field of practice and type of agency, length of time in social work, qualifications and a range of demographic data in relation to age, gender and ethnicity. One hundred

146 Journal of Social Work 11(2)

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on April 3, 2016jsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

and ninety one questionnaires were returned from the original sample of 710. No explicit definition of social justice was given to the participants as it was their definition which was of interest, not their response to an externally provided def- inition. Two questions also asked them to describe an incident from their practice involving issues of social justice and asked them to describe action taken to counter injustice or to promote social justice. The material used here draws from the responses to the questions about definition and the practice examples the partici- pants provided, illustrating the application of their definition of social justice.

Reflecting the emphasis in the literature on social justice noted above, ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ were the two explicit definitional terms used most widely, with 77 participants using the former as part of their definition and 23 using the latter, while a further 24 linked both terms together. Alongside these terms, terms such as ‘advocacy’, ‘access’, ‘discrimination’, ‘rights’, well-being and ‘respect’ were used by 61 other participants in their definition of social justice; these terms were not explicitly linked with ‘equality’ and/or ‘fairness’, but this does not mean that ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ were not part of their thinking about social justice. Rather, it simply means that they did not explicitly use these words in their defi- nition. Space precludes discussion of the definitions and examples related to the use of these terms to define social justice and its practice.

Social justice as equality

Like the concept of fairness (discussed below), ‘equality’ is a concept with very wide meanings and interpretations, both nationally and internationally. At one end of the spectrum, equality is used to refer to equal treatment and equal access, that is treating everybody in ‘the same’ way. Here, citizenship and inclusion/exclusion are reflected in the extent to which there is equal (identical) treatment of all citizens. (Failure to treat everybody equally can [and does] lead to complaints of unfairness, illustrating the close interrelatedness between the two concepts.) Towards the other end of the spectrum, ‘equality’ moves towards a more radical meaning, reflecting in large part the ‘difference’ dimension of the now well known sameness/difference debate in which pursuit of equality (and therefore of inclusive citizenship) requires different (rather than the same) treatment (see Young, 2008). Here, Fraser’s (1995) seminal work on recognition as an integral component of social justice is particu- larly significant. At this end of the spectrum, failing to provide different treatment is itself unequal because of the unequal social and economic position of different groups. In contrast to the arguments based on equal (identical) treatment, diversity is not the alternative to equality. Rather, in this position, diversity enhances equal- ity by ensuring that unequals are treated differently and unequally.

As the discussion below demonstrates, social workers in this study reflected a range of locations between these two ends of the equality spectrum. In defining equality and then discussing its operationalization in practice, the research partic- ipants referred to equal treatment, equal access, equal rights, equal opportunity (usually in the sense of same opportunities at an individual level), the need for

O’Brien 147

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on April 3, 2016jsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

diverse programmes and services in order to advance equality and, in a small number of instances, explicit attention to wider issues of structural inequalities. While some argued for equal (identical) treatment, others argued that equality required different treatment and action.

Defining equality in terms of identicalness led one practitioner to argue that social justice means:

Society seeking to create a just system and working towards addressing areas that are

found to be unjust or inequitable.

This, then, led her to provide the following practice example:

When a client was unable to have access to a service because technically she didn’t fit

their criteria. However, she had no other options available to her and if she didn’t

receive help from this service she would continue in a cycle which I believe was abusive

to her. It was the system in place that was abusive, not the individual workers . . .

Myself and others at my office continued to push the issue so that others could not

ignore the needs of the client.

Another group of practitioners referred to equal (same) access to resources, support and services as part of their definition. The following practice example reflects this emphasis:

I regularly need to advocate for the rights of the mentally ill and disabled to access the

resources, sometimes extra resources, to have their health, welfare, education needs

met or a chance to do so, at the same or similar level to anyone else.

Access for one participant went further than was indicated in the examples above in that equality of access required more than opportunities, requiring an institutional review of the regulations determining services.

It’s [social justice] about access. All members of society having access to the things

they need to live. Not so much equality because striving for equality does not always

result in things being equal.

Worked with an elderly gentleman who needed specific physical support but didn’t fit

any of the correct funding streams (mental health, disability etc). Clearly needed the

help for this and his family’s wellbeing so took the issue to a managerial level at the

DHB. 3 It is still being ‘negotiated’ between managers but my concept of access rather

than fitting them into boxes means I won’t let the case rest until there is a resolution.

Some of the research participants explicitly linked issues of access to resources with ideas of creating equal opportunity so that users could participate in the society. To return to the analogy at the beginning of this article, their work to

148 Journal of Social Work 11(2)

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on April 3, 2016jsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

create an equal opportunity was part of establishing a means by which to cross the bridge, to create opportunities for inclusion:

Equal opportunity for all regardless of race, age, gender or status.

The definition is then translated into practice through the following example.

A Maori mother who believed she was stupid and not able to better herself. She had

been beaten often by an ex-partner, moved . . . to get away from the partner. She was

very isolated, had four children and few skills. My belief in equal opportunity for all

motivated me to help this woman get support within the community. I also encour-

aged her to do night school and contrived to encourage and support her until she had

enrolled in a polytechnic course. Once she had experienced success with night school

her esteem improved and inspired a belief in her own ability that opportunities were

for her the same as they were for others.

The following examples from their practice reflect practitioners’ work to facil- itate these opportunities:

A regular occurrence is where families whose children cannot access any additional

school or out of school activities such as school camps, sports clubs, music/dance/etc.

lessons. This disadvantages these children and sets them apart from other children.

My practice has been to address the reasons for this situation, that is, the basis of the

families’ poverty and to do so at a practical level but also in the wider macro level . . .

I report trends, advocate at WINZ 4 and CYF,

5 write to my MP, discuss at ANZASW

meetings, support petitions etc. I also talk to families about how their circumstances

are connected to political decisions.

Equality was also defined in terms of equal rights, reflected in the examples below:

Define social justice in terms of equal rights. Assisting the client to achieve a specific

task in order to relieve their needs to improve their situation.

Attend most WINZ appointments with clients to know that they are being treated

fairly, civilly and receiving what they are entitled to.

Often clients go along with CYF decisions which are contrary to the client. I have on

many occasions informed my clients of their right to disagree or not sign any agree-

ment especially if the case against them is weak. That puts me offside with CYF. You

can’t please everyone in social work.

Other participants who defined social justice in terms of equality emphasized the need for diverse treatment in order to achieve equality, moving here

O’Brien 149

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on April 3, 2016jsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

towards equal outcomes. For example, one of the participants defined equality as follows:

Striving for equitable outcomes for all. This may not mean equal or ‘exactly the same’

but it would lead to each person having the best possible chance at becoming able to

participate in society to their fullest ability, regardless.

The following example from practice was used to illustrate this:

I am working with an Ethiopian mother and daughter to try to improve the behaviour

of the daughter. When I first started the case the girl (aged 10) was in CYF care. The

school, CAFS 6 and the caregivers all wanted her to stay in care – they saw Mum’s

struggles to negotiate the New Zealand system as the problem rather than trying to

understand the vast cultural/language divide. I have seen my work with the family as

having a huge educational component to bridge the gap from both sides in order to

give Mum and daughter the skills to participate in New Zealand society without

having to lose their cultural identity.

Equality and social justice were also linked in broad societal terms, as in these examples:

Challenging inequalities. Challenging policies and practices.

Redistributing resources and power in society to overcome disadvantage. It’s about

equity rather than just equal distribution.

The following practice example illustrates this.

A Hamilton property rental company used to tell my sole parent clients over the

phone that a flat was available, then when they came to the agency to register, flats

had mysteriously disappeared!! A quick chat with the owner of the company reminded

him that we have laws against this and that a good name for the practice was ‘racism’.

Clients reported changes in the practice thereafter.

Fairness

Like equality, ‘fairness’ has a range of meanings and dimensions. It may be used to describe practices and policies which are inclusive and, therefore, as noted above, widen the status and practice of citizenship. Conversely, ‘unfairness’ is used to describe and criticize practices which exclude. In their definitions of social justice, the practitioners described and defined ‘fairness’ in two broad senses. First, fairness involved the ways in which users were treated by agencies and by the wider society. Second, fairness also involved the outcomes and activities of social institutions and

150 Journal of Social Work 11(2)

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on April 3, 2016jsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

social practices. That is, those institutions and practices needed to operate in ways which were fair to all, particularly to those who were excluded.

The concept of ‘fairness’ included three elements, namely, 1) the non-discrimina- tory treatment of individual users and of disadvantaged groups generally – for some this included historical redress; 2) having access to resources which ensured adequate opportunities (very close similarities here with the use of ‘equality’ discussed above); 3) promotion of rights of indigenous, minority and disadvantaged groups. Clearly, these three elements can be interconnected, as in the example below:

Social justice is an idea and philosophy and a framework of thinking that encom-

passes individual rights to self determination with a context of social norms, social

capital, human rights, the rights of minorities and equitable and fair access to

resources.

Not discriminating meant that clients should not be denied a service or assis- tance simply because they did not fit into particular sets of assumptions:

A client was denied [assistance] . . . although he had perfectly good excuse for not

attending a particular appointment, a training course and applying for a job he was

given a standdown of 13 weeks. In my definition of social justice the authorities

cannot deny a person because he said the ‘wrong’ thing.

For some of the participants, fairness involves a different element, namely ensur- ing that individuals and families have the resources they need and working then to ensure the provision of those resources, denial of which may occur because of discriminatory behaviour.

Fair access to social services, health services, legal services, disability services etc. If

there was ‘social justice’ there would be equity of access that didn’t rely on influences

such as wealth, power, gender, culture.

Advocacy for disabled client to live in own home with support that the funder (MoH) 7

would not allow. Funder demanded that client move to a residential setting that fitted

with their ‘ill defined’. This would have forced the client to fit the MoH policy box.

MoH were concerned about creating a precedent although this would have meant the

client was treated as an individual, with dignity and respect. The issue was unjust as

the client was not given a choice where and how to live and who to lie with . . . Advised

clients to involve specialist advocate and/or MP, media.

While the distinction may sometimes be rather blurred, some of the participants defined fairness in terms of treatment rather than access, especially in relation to how users were treated by public agencies.

What is fair and right for all.

O’Brien 151

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on April 3, 2016jsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Young Saudi woman assaulted and verbally abused. Police witnessed assault and

intervened. In the intervention policeman hit on the arm by young woman as she

tried to protect herself. Police charged her with assault with a weapon. Very serious

charge which would have serious consequences for her chosen study and career. It was

totally unjust for the victim of the assault to be charged for protecting herself. Police

also blocked a diversion and she was required to stand trial . . . I wrote a strong letter

to the presiding Judge asking for a discharge without conviction and explaining the

continued distress being caused by the police prosecution. A discharge without con-

viction was granted and the victim will consider taking a complaint to the independent

police authority.

Fair and just treatment of any individual, and the right to benefit from what is avail-

able in any society.

This is not just a practice incident but relates to a number of the client group with

whom I work – there is the problem of housing patients who have mental illness and

who have a history of offending. Because they fall in a particular category HNZ 8 and

City council housing (low cost housing) are reluctant to accept them as tenants and in

one instance a patient has been kept waiting seven months for a HNZ unit while

another person was granted a HNZ flat directly from prison without any wait. It has

affected my practice in that I have had to become a strong advocate for this client

group to the point of arranging a meeting with our management and with low cost

housing providers about housing problems.

Some of the participants extended the meaning of ‘fairness’ beyond unfair and discriminatory treatment to include structural dimensions in their definition. Thus, ‘fairness’ occurs when those who are disadvantaged are given additional resources to ensure that they are not excluded from the opportunities available to those who have the requisite resources because of their particular personal, family, social and/ or financial circumstances. In this definition, some discrimination is in fact required to ensure fairness for those who have less. Providing additional resources to those who are excluded ensures that these groups and/or individuals have a chance for inclusion. This approach is reflected in the following definition:

Fairness in social issues or society, for example, health, education, justice, welfare.

This includes distribution of wealth and advantages as well as the right of self deter-

mination. Social justice is about both individuals and groups of people and in New

Zealand . . . Fairness to me is about equality and equal opportunities.

For this participant, this broad perspective translated into her work in the example below:

Working with teen parents. Social justice issues around access to education (for them

and their children), access to finance, labelled as being ‘bad’ parents. Practice: Began a

152 Journal of Social Work 11(2)

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on April 3, 2016jsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

project group to look at possible ways to overcome issues. Led to establishing a teen

parent unit where young parents get access to education and support. My definition of

social justice meant I was not able to accept the injustice due to the unfair treatment of

teen parents.

Fairness and equality

In addition to the overlap between the usage of the terms, some participants explic- itly linked fairness and equality together. Here too, as reflected in the material above, some used the terms to describe practice with a quite individual approach to social justice, while others moved towards a more structural approach in their definition, although practice examples were largely individual, an issue to which I will return in the discussion below. As above, the individual approach conveyed a strong emphasis on fair and equal treatment and/or access to services and programmes:

A society where there is a fair and equitable distribution of resources and where all

members’ human rights are recognized and all members are considered equal.

A client over 65 with hearing loss was unable to afford hearing aids and thus his

inability to communicate with others affected his quality of life. If this client was

working or a child he would have had access to government subsidies. My definition

of social justice includes having equal access to resources to participate in society and I

felt older people were getting a bad deal. The government subsidy had not been raised

for years. I applied to a trust for funding for a hearing aid and was successful. I raised

the issue at the Age Care Forum of which I am a member, a forum that meets monthly

to discuss, coordinate, advocate and focus on the needs of older people. I wrote to

David Cunliffe, the Minister of Health, and Ruth Dyson about the issue and spoke to

people at MoH. Before last election government subsidy was raised but in the mean-

time the cost of aids has risen.

Other participants linked their individual practice examples with considerations around positive discrimination. While these were still individual practice examples, they differed from those drawn on above because of their wider approach to equal- ity and fairness or because they shifted the focus of their practice beyond their individual client activities:

Equity and fairness for all . . . Equality in basic liberties and opportunities for advance-

ment and positive discrimination for the less privileged to achieve equity.

A North African family whose children were removed by CYFS. The three children

were not only removed from their parents, they were separated. The parents were not

‘allowed’ to speak in their own language to the children at supervised visits so the

O’Brien 153

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on April 3, 2016jsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

children as a consequence of four years of no language now cannot speak the tongue

with their parents (now reunited) and their mother until more recently could not speak

much English, so huge issues of attachment ensued. The parents have a fear of the

power of state agencies so have been overpowered institutionally.

Working with individuals to alleviate unfavourable problems and treating each cul-

ture, race with respect, ensuring diverse care. Fair treatment, equality and providing

the best to overcome the problem.

Rental property . . . where I spoke on the phone to the property manager that I had a

client who would like to look at this apartment. Two bedrooms, no children, no dogs

and to me suited the apartment. She stated go around and look at the property. If

your client liked the property then come back and fill out the tenancy agreement.

Everything was really great, my client had a reference from his landlord from a pre-

vious rental. However, that was not good enough and I put it down to the culture.

Because he was Maori she stated that the flat was taken.

Another group of participants also took up the wider questions, and, while akin to many of the responses described above in that they were linking individual examples with those wider definitions, there was a stronger emphasis on wider, structural aspects of fairness and equality as the components of social justice.

Social justice is the unifying term given to the pursuit of equality and fairness in all

human situations and in relation to the use and distribution of resources.

As a policy analyst and became aware of the unfair treatment of Maori and Pacific

Island young persons in their involvement with the New Zealand criminal justice

system. Responses to them were disproportional and affected by bias and prejudice.

This resulted in unfair treatment and outcomes for those young people compared with

matched white young people. Was able to advocate for a change to the law (CYP&F

Act) which limited the exercise of professional discretion to the nature of the offence,

rather than to any characteristic of the offender.

The practice of socially just inclusive citizenship

For the social workers in this study, ‘social justice’ has a range of meanings, as it does in the academic and professional literature. Social exclusion is reduced and social inclusion enhanced through practice based around, inter alia, access to req- uisite resources and services, ‘fair’ and consistent treatment, creation and extension of opportunities (using that word with a range of meanings) and positive discrim- ination. To utilize the analogy at the start of this article, this practice enables and facilitates progress across the bridge through active support, advocacy, challenges to practices and provisions which exclude, support to ensure that the application

154 Journal of Social Work 11(2)

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on April 3, 2016jsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

and interpretation of citizenship rights is inclusive rather than exclusive and, in a smaller number of instances, active efforts to change practices which exclude. In these (and other respects) the practitioners who participated in this study were actively engaging in what one participant described in her definition as: ‘a justice which governs the community or social relationships where the poor, the margin- alised, those discriminated against, for whatever reason . . . are excluded from full participation in community/society’.

The breadth of definitions and descriptions used by these practitioners raise significant questions for social work on a range of fronts. One of the most impor- tant of these questions revolves around the sameness/difference debate referred to earlier in this article (Fraser, 1995; Lister, 2008). Some of the practitioners have quite explicitly defined equality and fairness as requiring different treatment, pol- icies and programmes while others have emphasized sameness. Arguments for dif- ferential approaches, reflecting differences in economic, cultural, ableness and gender locations make arguments for identical treatment difficult to sustain, reflected in expressions such as ‘one size doesn’t fit all’. At the same time, difference alone is insufficient unless it is linked with and built on a base of equality. Social work practice, social work education and social service provision need to engage with both sameness and difference and the relationship between these is fundamen- tal to exploring the values inherent in social work and in its ethical base.

This practice is the daily expression and performance of social justice – it is an example of ‘just practice’ to use Lundy (2004) and Waldegrave, Tamasese, Tuhaka, and Campbell’s (2003) expression. Most of the examples provided by the practi- tioners came out of their work with users and their families, providing a useful illustration of Jordan’s (2007) observation that the effective daily practice of social work is social justice in practice as performed at an individual level. It is practice which is: ‘significant for empowerment and inclusion of citizens, and for equality and justice in society’ (Jordan, 2007, p. 12). Social justice has both a micro-dimen- sion as well as the more commonly articulated macro-dimension. Here there are strong parallels with the arguments advance by Ife (2008, 2010) in his work on human rights and social work; human rights are advanced by protecting and advancing the rights of individuals and by work to advance and extend human rights on a collective basis. Human rights and social justice are linked at a number of critical levels.

In this exploration of the social justice dimensions of social work practice, there is an important consideration too as to whether social exclusion or social cohesion shapes and guides that practice. Sheppard (2006, p. 241) argues that social work ‘works within a broad order or social consensus approach’, going on to argue that: ‘a knowledge form which requires action at the level of social structure and social change is likewise problematic’ (Sheppard, 2006, p. 242). This narrow, conservative approach to social exclusion is not reflected in these examples where the practi- tioners are clearly describing examples which reflect efforts to change social services and, to a lesser extent, social systems; they are not examples of attempting to ensure that users ‘fit in’. Rather, the practice described here takes a broader social

O’Brien 155

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on April 3, 2016jsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

inclusion frame, aiming to enhance the nature and experience of citizenship; it characterizes a practice which is more akin to Jordan’s (2007, p. 19) description of social work as work which aims: ‘to give rise to interactions which are more positive, more inclusive, fairer and hence more conducive to well-being’. It is, of course, practitioners own descriptions; complementing those descriptions with data from users would be very useful in exploring this further.

While most of the examples provided by these practitioners involved direct work with individuals and families, a small number moved beyond this to provide exam- ples of efforts to effect change either in organizational rules and/or procedures or in government policy, law or regulations. This is not to suggest that the work with individuals and families does not involve issues of social justice; the examples provided here clearly attest to this. Rather, it highlights that the practice of social justice is substantially reflected in practice at what might be called the micro-level, with less attention to broader social and economic change. A compre- hensive approach to social exclusion requires much more systematic efforts to advance social justice through working for and towards social change.

While the sample in this research is drawn from New Zealand, the definitions which the participants provide and the examples they use warrant comparable investigation internationally to explore the extent, if any, to which the ideas and their translation into the daily work of practitioners is replicated in other countries or is significantly different. While acknowledging the specifics of the local setting, exploration of these similarities and differences would make a useful contribution to the task of identifying the global dimensions of social work practice and con- tribute to the current debate on the definition of social work.

It is in the work to effect systemic change that the major challenge lies for social work practice, for professional organizations and for social work educators. Olson’s (2007) argument about the competing professional and social justice dis- courses is significant here. Essentially his argument is that these two discourses compete within social work and the former (the professional discourse) triumphs, for a range of reasons, many of which are associated with efforts to protect social work’s territory and advance its status. Despite the strength and power of the push towards ‘professionalization’, the question remains as to whether the two dis- courses are necessarily and inevitably as antithetical as Olson (2007) suggests. As some commentators have noted, a closer connection between social workers and users provides a potential model of professionalism which could and should also serve to strengthen the social justice discourse (Ferguson & Lavalette, 2005; Jordan, 2007).

Without attention to wider considerations of social change alongside the work with individuals, families and communities, social work fails to live up fully to its history and mandate. For a range of reasons, attention to and action on the wider questions creates particular demands and stresses for practitioners. This does not negate the importance of practitioners engaging in such work; quite the contrary. However, it does mean that professional associations and educators carry a par- ticular responsibility, with and on behalf of practitioners, to advance that

156 Journal of Social Work 11(2)

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on April 3, 2016jsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

component of social work practice. The challenge for both professional associa- tions and educators is to promote and advance social justice, at all levels.

In the conclusion to his thought provoking book, Lorenz (2006, p. 177) argues that because of social work’s base in social justice, human dignity and empower- ment, social work should be able to make an important contribution to:

solidarity across differences rather than exclusion. In this sense social work practice

becomes explicitly social policy practice as is in every single moment of intervention

the right of the participants to belong and the form in which that belonging can be

realised are at stake.

This summary captures many of the elements of both the definitions and the examples used by these practitioners as they defined and described the nature of their practice across the bridge to advance inclusion and reduce exclusion from full citizenship. There was an enormous richness in the examples, descriptions and illustrations provided by the participants in this research project; this article has been able to present but a sample of that richness. Working with equality and fairness (in their myriad meanings) as integral features of practice provides a strong basis for socially just practice. It needs to extend across the work of all practitioners and also needs to encompass daily practice that reduces social exclu- sion, advances social inclusion and extends the practices and status of citizenship, individually and collectively.

Notes

1. The specific questions were: a) how would you define social justice; b) please describe a

practice incident involving issues of social justice, identify what was unjust and how did your definition of social justice affect your practice; c) can you give an example of social work practice action you have taken to counteract injustice/promote justice.

2. In addition to being asked for some demographic and practice information, participants were also asked a) to describe the most important influences on their thinking about social justice; b) to identify the three most important social justice issues affecting their

practice; c) to rank different dimensions of social justice. That data are not reported here. 3. DHB refers to the local, publically funded health service, the District Health Board. 4. Work and Income New Zealand. 5. Children Youth and Family Service.

6. Community and Family Services. 7. Ministry of Health. 8. Housing New Zealand.

References

Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers. (n.d.). Retrieved 2 November 2009

from: http://www.anzasw.org.nz/code-of-ethics. Australian Association of Social Workers. (1999). Code of Ethics. Retrieved 2 November

1999 from: www.aasw.asn.au.

O’Brien 157

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on April 3, 2016jsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Boucher, D., & Kelly, P. (Eds.) (1998). Social justice: From Hume to Walzer. London:

Routledge. British Association of Social Workers. (n.d.). Retrieved 2 November 2009 from: http:///

about/codeofethics.

Canadian Association of Social Workers. (n.d.). Retrieved 2 November 2009 from: http:// www.casw-acts.ca.

Craig, G. (2002). Poverty, social work and social justice. British Journal of Social Work, 32(2), 669–682.

Ferguson, I., & Lavalette, M. (2005). ‘Another world is possible’: Social work and the struggle for social justice. In I. Ferguson, M. Lavalette & E. Whitmore (Eds.), Globalisation, global justice and social work (pp. 207–224). London: Routledge.

Fraser, N. (1995). From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a ‘post- Socialist’ age. New Left Review, 212, 68–93.

Ife, J. (2008). Human rights and social work. Towards rights based practice. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Ife, J. (2010). Human rights from below: Achieving rights through community development.

Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. International Federation of Social Workers. (n.d.). Retrieved 2 November 2009 from: http://

www.ifsw.orgp38000324.html. Jordan, B. (2007). Social work and well-being. Lyme Regis: Random House. Jordan, B., & Parton, N. (2004). Social work, the public sphere and civil society.

In R. Lovelock, K. Lyons & J. Powell (Eds.), Reflecting on social work: Discipline and profession (pp. 20–36). Aldershot: Ashgate.

Lister, R. (1997). Citizenship: Feminist perspectives. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Lister, R. (2007). Social justice: Meanings and politics. Benefits: The Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 15(2), 113–125.

Lister, R. (2008). Recognition and voice: The challenge for social justice. In G. Craig,

T. Burchardt & D. Gordon (Eds.), Social justice and public policy (pp. 105–122). Bristol: The Policy Press.

Lorenz, W. (2006). Perspectives on European social work: From the birth of the nation state to the impact of globalisation. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.

Lundy, C. (2004). Social work and social justice. Toronto: Broadview Press. National Association of Social Workers. (n.d.). Retrieved 2 November 2009 from: http://

www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code.

Olson, J. (2007). Social work’s social justice and professional projects: Discourses in conflict. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 18(1), 45–69.

Sheppard, M. (2006). Social work and social exclusion. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Solas, J. (2008). What kind of social justice does social work seek? International Social Work, 51(6), 813–822.

Waldegrave, C., Tamasese, K., Tuhaka, F., & Campbell, W. (2003). Just therapy: A journey.

Adelaide: Dulwich Centre Publications. Wolff, J. (2008). Social justice and public policy: A view from political philosophy.

In G. Craig, T. Burchardt & D. Gordon (Eds.), Social justice and public policy: Seeking fairness in diverse societies (pp. 17–32). Bristol: The Policy Press.

Young, I. M. (2008). Structural injustice and the politics of difference. In G. Craig, T. Burchardt & D. Gordon (Eds.), Social justice and public policy: Seeking fairness in diverse societies (pp. 77–104). Bristol: The Policy Press.

158 Journal of Social Work 11(2)

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on April 3, 2016jsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from