|
Article Excerpt
Social workers have a rich history of working in a political context on behalf of various social causes and client populations. This commitment to political advocacy is documented in the NASW (2000) Code of Ethics and the Council on Social Work Education's (CSWE) (2002) curriculum policy statements for baccalaureate and master's degree programs. However, some have argued that this commitment to social and political action is not carried out in practice, and in recent years the social work profession has been accused of neglecting its commitment to social and political action and of being more committed to private practice and efforts to enhance the status of the profession (Abramovitz & Bardill, 1993; Figueira-McDonough, 1993; Haynes & Mickelson, 2006; Reeser & Epstein, 1987, 1990; Specht & Courtney, 1994). According to Alexander (1982), instead of participating in the process wholeheartedly, the social work profession has historically had a "love-hate relationship" with politics. Though many agree that social work is inherently political, since the beginning of the profession social workers have debated how political the profession should be and tensions have emerged between clinical-oriented social workers (micro-changers) and those with a social policy focus (macro-changers).
There is a substantial body of research on Americans' participation in the political process. However, research on social workers' political participation is sparse, which may be an indication of the profession's neglect of this domain of practice. The social work literature is full of studies evaluating social workers' clinical interventions, but strikingly few have assessed social workers' political advocacy efforts or how well schools of social work are preparing students for policy work. Previous studies have evaluated how politically active social workers are, but these studies are primarily descriptive in nature; only one has attempted to explain why some social workers are more active than others (Hamilton & Fauri, 2001). This study fills a gap in the current knowledge base regarding licensed social workers' political participation. Political scientists have studied extensively the degree to which people participate in the political process and the factors that influence whether they participate. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the factors that may affect licensed social workers' political participation by testing Verba, Schlozman, and Brady's (1995) citizen participation model, which is a comprehensive model developed to explain why citizens become involved in politics. In other words, this study attempts to determine why some licensed social workers participate politically, whereas others do not.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Research on social workers' political participation is sparse. In 1981, Wolk observed that the social work literature suggested a need for the profession to become more active in the legislative process, "even though the extent and quality of the political activism of social workers have never been documented" (p. 283). Only nine studies have been conducted on social workers' political participation, which makes it difficult to reach any definitive conclusions. Six of these studies are of professional social workers (Epstein, 1969; Ezell, 1993; Hamilton & Fauri, 2001; Parker & Sherraden, 1992; Reeser, 1986; Wolk, 1981), whereas three (Andrews, 1998; Pawlak & Flynn, 1990; Salcido & Seck, 1992) are of various subsets of social workers (that is, executive directors, NASW chapters, child and family services workers).
Generally, these studies have found that social workers are more politically active than the general population and at least as active as other professional groups (Andrews, 1998; Ezell, 1993; Hamilton & Fauri, 2001; Parker & Sherraden, 1992; Wolk, 1981). Although social workers are more likely to vote, contact legislators by letter or by phone, and belong to organizations that take public stands, they are less likely to engage in more direct political behaviors such as volunteering for a political campaign, contributing financially to a campaign, or testifying before a legislative committee (Andrews, 1998; Ezell, 1993; Hamilton & Fauri, 2001; Parker & Sherraden, 1992; Wolk, 1981).This may be an indication that social workers do not have the skills or the level of efficacy required to perform these types of political activities.
According to Verba and Nie's (1972) classic definition, political participation includes" those activities by private citizens that are more or less directly aimed at influencing the selection of governmental personnel and/or the actions they take" (p. 2). Verba and colleagues (1995) outlined four modes of political participation or ways that citizens can be involved politically--voting, electoral activities (activities related to getting candidates elected), nonelectoral political activities, and unconventional political activities (for example, protests, demonstrations, marches, consumer boycotts). People who are active politically tend to be people with social and economic advantage: They are more likely to be white, in older age groups, with higher incomes and education levels, and religiously observant (Cavanaugh, 1991; Conway, 1999; Crotty, 1991; Milbrath, 1965; Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993; Verba et al., 1995). Education consistently has been found to be one of the most important components of socioeconomic status (SES) in influencing political participation. Those with higher levels of education are more likely to vote and to participate in other forms of electoral activity (Conway, 1985; Verba et al., 1995).
Many theories of political participation have been developed to explain why some citizens are politically active, whereas others are not. Although empirical studies of turnout and voting began as far back as the 1920s, there is still no widely accepted theory to explain political participation (Dennis, 1991). However, Verba and colleagues's (1995) citizen participation model was successful in explaining why some Americans become involved in politics, whereas others do not. This model is a blend of a number of theories, including the SES model, the rational actor approach, social network theory, and psychological theory. The purpose of the current study is to test the civic voluntarism model (Verba et al., 1995) to determine whether it can explain why some licensed social workers are more politically active than are others (see Figure 1).
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
METHOD
The sampling goal was to obtain a nationally...
|
