Using Experiential Learning to Democratize and De-Center Social Work Knowledge: A Qualitative Study on Structural Oppression

Terms like structural oppression, power and empowerment, and social justice populate the social work literature. Yet, the meaning of these terms and their implications for practice are often contested or ambiguous. For example, while social justice has been a core social work value for over a century, requirements that students demonstrate competency in implementing this value is relatively recent. Developing an approach that clarifies the meaning and usage of these concepts would constitute an important step in democratizing and de-centering contemporary social work knowledge. One potential strategy to achieve this objective involves using experiential learning (EL) in both academic and professional settings. Experiential learning (EL) is a critical component in the acquisition of requisite skills and values. Proponents posit that learning is a flexible trait and interaction with the environment in which it occurs encourages learning by promoting learners’ engagement and ownership of the educational process more effectively than traditional didactic methods. To date, however, there has been little research assessing the effectiveness of EL for this purpose. This paper reports on a study of how a simulation, Starpower, changed students’ comprehension of social justice-oriented values and their significance for practice.

To explore this issue, this study used a purposive sampling of 73 students in senior BSW practice courses. In the simulation, leaders have unlimited powers to make and change the game’s rules. After completing this exercise, participants answered two open-ended questions: “How did this activity change your understanding of structural oppression?” and “How did this activity affect your understanding of the importance of macro social work?” Data were collected voluntarily through anonymous written surveys. Three coders independently coded responses to identify common themes, following the six steps recommended for thematic analysis.

Common themes in response to Question 1 were: (1) Those who possess power maintain their power; (2) Structural oppression is entrenched; (3) Clients may break rules if rules do not benefit them; (4) People without representation are excluded from key decisions; (5) Unchanged perception, reinforced beliefs of structural oppression, and 6) Oppression results in mental and physical suffering.

Analysis of the second question identified five themes: (1) Change is possible; (2) Advocacy is important; (3) Structural change is difficult, barriers exist; (4) Social workers have a unique opportunity to promote change; and (5) Advocacy involves community buy-in.

Results indicate EL has the potential to clarify the meaning and practice implications of oft-used concepts like power and structural oppression. The simulation illustrated why members of lower status groups find it difficult to mobilize and organize, and why they often feel desperate and withdraw or break rules that work against their interests. Results from the second research question indicated that EL could enhance participants’ understanding of the importance of advocacy and macro social work in countering these effects.

Future research should explore whether EL has different effects on participants who encounter structural injustice in their lives from those with greater societal privilege and whether different forms of EL are more effective in producing the desired result of democratizing knowledge.