Creating Inclusive Spaces: Examining Faculty-to-Faculty Incivility in Social Work Education

Background and Purpose:

This study explores faculty-to-faculty incivility (FFI) within social work education, which has implications for faculty retention, the implicit curriculum, and modeling of professional values. Despite a growing body of literature on faculty incivility in higher education, relatively little is known about the extent and implications of FFI in social work education. Research questions include: To what extent is FFI perceived to be a problem in social work education? What factors contribute to FFI? What factors keep faculty from addressing FFI? What themes emerge from personal experiences with FFI among social work faculty?

Methods:

Data Collection: Participants were recruited through email requests to Deans and Directors of all CSWE-accredited schools and departments of social work, who were asked to forward the survey link to their faculty. Invitations were also sent to social work education listservs, including those for baccalaureate programs, masters programs, and policy faculty.

Sample: A total of 243 surveys were completed. Respondents were primarily female (76%) and white (89%). Those who identify as African-American or Black were underrepresented in this study at 7%. Most respondents were at the rank of professor (22%), associate professor (28%), or assistant professor (25%).

Measure: The instrument used for the study is the Faculty-to-Faculty Incivility Survey (F-FI Survey) developed by Cynthia Clark for use in schools of nursing. The survey includes three sections: 1) demographics, 2) quantitative items and scales regarding faculty experiences with incivility, and 3) open-ended questions requesting stories about incivility and suggestions for effectively addressing incivility.

Results:

Quantitative survey responses suggest FFI is perceived as a moderate to serious problem among social work educators (59%). Contributing factors to FFI included a sense of entitlement and superiority (59%), and unclear roles and expectations (47%). Fear of retaliation (53%) and a lack of administrative support (45%) were cited as the top reasons for choosing not to address incivility.

Open-ended survey responses described professional and personal impacts of workplace incivility. Three additional themes emerge from these data: a discussion on how incivility occurs, the causes of incivility, and the role power and hierarchies have in supporting environments where these behaviors thrive. The data suggests FFI within social work education has implications for future job prospects, hiring decisions, and tenure and promotion. These data also confirm that consequences of microaggressions in the workplace are as harmful as overt acts of incivility.

Conclusions and Implications:

As social work education responds to recent crises of racial injustice, COVID-19, economic recession, and institutional challenges in higher education, it is critical to attend to the aspects of the implicit curriculum that most directly impact the success of students, faculty, staff, and universities. Structural causes of incivility and the dynamics affecting faculty from marginalized groups are essential to this discussion. The themes emerging from the qualitative responses, including active and passive incidents of incivility, ideological and identity-oriented incivility, power and hierarchy, and the long-term impacts of incivility, can inform social work education’s response to workplace incivility and our commitment to maintaining inclusive spaces.