"Striving Toward Equity for All": Social Work Faculty and Staff Define Social Justice.

Brittanie Atteberry-Ash, N Eugene Walls, Jessica Williams, Brendon T Holloway
{"title":"\"Striving Toward Equity for All\": Social Work Faculty and Staff Define Social Justice.","authors":"Brittanie Atteberry-Ash, N Eugene Walls, Jessica Williams, Brendon T Holloway","doi":"10.1080/26408066.2024.2397662","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The guiding documents of the social work profession establish social justice as central to the discipline and practice of social work, yet there is little consensus on the meaning of the term. Therefore, the goal of this study was to examine how faculty and staff in one school of social work defined social justice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data for this study were drawn from a school climate survey distributed within one school of social work with an explicitly stated commitment to social justice. Ninety-three staves and faculty responded to the open-ended question: <i>How do you define social justice?</i></p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Three themes were identified in how participants defined social justice as a form of evidence-based meaning making: (1) <i>equality</i>, (2) <i>equity</i>, and (3) <i>advocacy and action</i>.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>We conclude this article by discussing implications for how social workers can incorporate a critical approach to defining social justice that extends beyond equality and equity. Specifically, we recommend that the profession work toward a common, evidenced-based understanding of social justice to effectively educate current and future social workers to dismantle systems of oppression at all levels of social work.</p>","PeriodicalId":73742,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evidence-based social work (2019)","volume":" ","pages":"654-668"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evidence-based social work (2019)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/26408066.2024.2397662","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The guiding documents of the social work profession establish social justice as central to the discipline and practice of social work, yet there is little consensus on the meaning of the term. Therefore, the goal of this study was to examine how faculty and staff in one school of social work defined social justice.

Methods: Data for this study were drawn from a school climate survey distributed within one school of social work with an explicitly stated commitment to social justice. Ninety-three staves and faculty responded to the open-ended question: How do you define social justice?

Findings: Three themes were identified in how participants defined social justice as a form of evidence-based meaning making: (1) equality, (2) equity, and (3) advocacy and action.

Discussion: We conclude this article by discussing implications for how social workers can incorporate a critical approach to defining social justice that extends beyond equality and equity. Specifically, we recommend that the profession work toward a common, evidenced-based understanding of social justice to effectively educate current and future social workers to dismantle systems of oppression at all levels of social work.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
"努力实现人人平等":社会工作教职员工定义社会正义。
目的:社会工作专业的指导性文件将社会公正确立为社会工作学科和实践的核心,但对该术语的含义却鲜有共识。因此,本研究的目的是考察一所社会工作学校的教职员工是如何定义社会公正的:本研究的数据来自于在一所明确承诺社会公正的社会工作学校内进行的校风调查。93 名教职员工回答了开放式问题:调查结果:在参与者如何将社会正义定义为一种基于证据的意义表达形式方面,确定了三个主题:(1)平等;(2)公平;以及(3)倡导和行动:在本文的最后,我们讨论了社会工作者如何采用一种批判性的方法来定义超越平等和公平的社会正义。具体而言,我们建议社会工作者努力对社会正义形成一种共同的、以证据为基础的理解,从而有效地教育当前和未来的社会工作者在社会工作的各个层面消除压迫制度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
An Evaluation of Self-Assessed Caregiver Readiness to Foster and Adopt After Participating in the National Training and Development Curriculum. Nature and Challenges of Transnational Family Caregiving: A Scoping Review. A Mixed Methods Approach to Korean-Youth Mental Health First Aid (K-YMHFA): A Pilot Study. What Works to Reduce Sex Workers' Risk of Crime Victimization? A Scoping Review. Key Challenges Experienced by Bangladeshi Human Trafficking Survivors During Social Reintegration: Insights from Survivors, Experts, and Social Workers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1