Looking Back to Look Forward: A Collaborative Autoethnographic Study of the Effects of Neoliberalism on Social Work Practice, Education and Research

Background: Neoliberalism is a dominant force shaping social work research, practice and education. Market-based pressures have resulted in the commodification of human services and higher education, making “widgets” of both social workers and the communities that we to serve. At the same time, neoliberal ideas about science and empirical truth have also impacted social work research. Using a collaborative autoethnographic approach, our team reflected on neoliberalism’s impact on our professional practice and academic experiences in social work. The theme of “disconnection” emerged across our collective experiences of neoliberal social work across practice, research and education.

Methods: We addressed two questions: 1) How has neoliberalism influenced social work education, research practice? and 2) What strategies promote critical and socially transformative social work? We interrogated our experiences using a collaborative autoethnographic methodology. Through this approach, we participated in individual (self-reflection) and collective (interview and group discussion) data collection. Analysis and interpretation consisted of multiple cycles of iterative coding and thematic sorting conducted both individually and collectively.

Findings: Disconnection characterized the effects of neoliberalism on our experiences, resulting in a narrowing of the view of what social work is, can be, and should be. We experienced being disconnected from our professional identities, disconnected from others within our communities (personal, practitioner and scholarly), from intellectual traditions and social work values. We find the result of these disconnections to blunt the effects we as social work practitioners, educators and researchers can have on social problems. Instead, we have been positioned as maintenance workers who treat the effects of poverty and inequity, rather than working to upend the structures that maintain them. The effects of this collective disconnection emerged in three related but discreate experiences: commodification, complicity, and disillusionment.

Finally, we offer recommendations on how the field of social work can undergo a critical and socially transformative shift. First, to re-center social work research, practice, and education around social work values and use those values for redesigning institutions. Second, to strategically use self to form connections between the personal (our identities and experiences) and the professional. Finally, to redesign schools of social work to be hubs for social innovation that seamlessly integrates research, practice and education.

Conclusion and Implications: This study examined the effects of neoliberal values and logics on social work. We found that experiences of disconnection are pervasive in social work practice, education, and research, due to neoliberal pressures to produce outcomes quickly. This disconnection limits the transformative potential of social work. Our strategies have implications for how we pursue social work education as we look to social work academia to take a leadership role in disrupting established practices and reintegrating research, practice and learning. Future scholarship should examine these strategies in detail and seek to generate a conversation within social work academia of how to foster innovation and connection across the domains of social work.