The Stories We Tell: Examining the Persistence and Impacts of Normative-Whiteness, and White-Supremacy within Social Work Education

Background

Although there is a growing body of literature denoting social works (SW) efforts to respond to racial inequality, there remains a paucity of research exploring the impacts of normative-whiteness, and White-supremacy within SW education. To address this gap, this investigation utilizes quantitative survey responses from 167 non-racially specific, active, SW faculty and administrators, and 12 qualitative interviews with active, African American (AA), SW faculty and administrators to gain an understanding of the perceived roles and impacts of whiteness, and White-supremacy within the profession.

Methods:

This study utilized a convergent-mixed-method approach. Data was collected concurrently, analyzed individually, and merged to provide a more comprehensive interpretive-description.

Of 167 survey participants 117 (70%) identified as non-Hispanic White, 29 (17%) as Black-AA, eight (5%) as not listed, five (3%) as Latin X, four (2%) of Asian descent, two (1%) as Indigenous American, one (.6%) as Pacific Islander, one (.6%) did not declare, 138 (83%) as female, 26 (16%) as male, three (2%) did not declare, 81 (49%) between the ages of 39 to 55, 41 (25%) as 38 years or younger, 43 (26%) as 56 years or older, two (1%) did not declare 47 (28%) as full-time Assistant Professors, 29 (17%) as Administrative-faulty, 24 (14%) as Associate faculty, 22 (13%) as Adjunct-faculty, 16 (10%) as full-time-Lectures, 13 (8%) as Full Professors, seven (4%) as Clinical Professors, seven (4%) as full-time Administrators and two (1%) did not declare.

Qualitative participants included 12 individuals, who identified as AA university SW faculty and or administrators, nine (75%) identified as woman, three (25%) as men, five (42%) as Tenure-track Assistant Professors, three (25%) as Full Professors, three (25%) as tenured Associate Professors, and one (8%) as a full-time Lecture.

Results:

Quantitative result suggest that participants recognized normative-whiteness and White-supremacy as primary social (98%) and professional (91%) issues, 92% felt that addressing these issues was consistent with SW’s code of ethics, and its use of person in space; 74% expressed the need for SW students to have additional training in whiteness / White-supremacy, specifically as they relate to person-in-space. In contrast, the majority of participants did not feel as though their own SW education (85%), or present pedagogical practices (90%) adequately prepared SW students to address these concerns; and 33% expressed limited confidence in their departments or national organizational – SSWR 80%, and CSWE 75%- commitments to dismantling them.

Qualitative results included Narratological-deception, Epistemological-omission, and a Divided-profession; which intersect with quantitative results, and the perceived persistence of White-supremacy within the profession.

Conclusion / Implications

Results call into question an implied SW professional, and educational identity that purports to practices and prepare students to address issues of racial inequality. According to participants, SW’s greatest obstacle is not its professionals, but a cultural narrative that shields it from racial critiques by positing that SW has adequately addressed these challenges within its ranks. Implications for SW include a critical engagement with its narrative identity, pedagogical practices, professional environment and national organizational commitments.