Climate justice, food insecurity and social work

This chapter provides an overview of the ever-growing climate crisis challenges and the resulting climate (in) justice challenges all over the world, and it discusses the ways in which social work knowledge and practice can actively contribute to addressing these problems. It presents the recent knowledge additions in social work writing, and it highlights the knowledge gaps to connect social work and climate justice; it critically discusses why and how social work education and practice focus on building a holistic climate justice approach to address the growing challenges of climate change, risks, and resource inequities. It advocates that social work curriculum and frameworks should address the human, social, political, and cultural rights of disadvantaged populations in the face of climate change and outlines the future scope of further knowledge contributions and research in social work education and practice in dealing with this climate change crisis. After this, it summarizes the structure and chapters of this book and emphasizes that social work educators and professionals need to transform climate change discussions from science, technocratic, economic, market-based, and policy discourses to eco-social interventions, green social work, and sustainable welfare systems, and environmental and climate justice discourses.

The first assumption of this article is that it is never easy to be radical; the second that this is particularly so within radical social work. The historical context and contradictions of radical social work are examined and the related social limitations that can lead to its deradicalisation are elaborated. The latter part of the article considers the problematic relationship of social work and marxism, and the centrality of gender divisions, reproduction and feminism in the analysis of (radical) social work. The article concludes with a discussion of political possibilities for radical social work, in resisting reactionary pressures, and maintaining political activity through organisational politics. I am very grateful to Bob Ashcroft for his help and encouragement in writing this article, to Julia Graham, Peter Hitch, Jim Kincaid, Mark Philp, Satya Schofield and Helena Scott for discussions on the issues raised, and to Satya Schofield for typing the script. I also owe a great, though more diffuse, debt to many other people, and particularly those involved in childcare campaigning.

Food Insecurity Among Adults With Severe Mental Illness

Foreword: Roy Bailey Social Work's Radical Kernel: situating Bailey and Brake within social work's 'contested' history ~ Michael Lavalette Part one: 'Radical social work' the fire last time: 'Case Con': the fire last time ~ Jeremy Weinstein Radical social work and British social work education in the 1970s ~ Chris Jones Organising for social change: community development work and collective action ~ Sarah Banks Part two: Social work and oppression: Radical social work and service users: a crucial connection ~ Peter Beresford Social work and women's oppression ~ Laura Penketh The jester's joke: what happened to anti-racism? ~ Charlotte Williams Radical social work and LGBT liberation ~ Laura Miles Social work: why class (still) matters - Iain Ferguson Part three: Contested futures: Is radical social work still possible? ~ Mary Langan It's alright for you to talk: commitment and the struggle for social justice ~ Michael Lavalette Radical social work and international social work ~ Vassilis Ioakimidis Radical social work's future possibilities ~ Mark Baldwin.

Radical Social Work

Editorial: Advancing Our Commitment to Antiracist Scholarship

The article by Jones and Lavalette in Critical and Radical Social Work, volume 1, number 2, entitled ‘The two souls of social work’ has provoked some debate in the journal. This response explores the concept of ‘popular social work’ and its relationship to ‘state-directed social work’ in general and radical social work in particular.

Radical social work aimed to provide a series of arguments for, and about, radical social work in Britain. It did not look at social-work engagement beyond Britain's shores. International social work attempts to look at a range of social problems that social work can address, at local ‘indigenous’ practices and the way(s) in which they can be incorporated into professional and regulated modes of social-work delivery. This chapter argues that international social work has an ambiguous history. First, it examines one aspect of social work's less-savoury history: the intersection of post-World War II international social work, the Marshall Plan, and the United States' imperial interests in post-war Greece. The chapter then discusses the distinction between ‘official social work’ and ‘popular social work’, the formative years of international social work, the impact of imperialism on social work, and social-work internationalisation versus internationalism.

Whatever happened to radical social work?, Mary Langan Phil Lee what's happening in social service departments?, Nick Frost Mike Stein social work unemployment, Geoffrey Pearson changing perspectives - feminism, gender social work, Annie Hudson decentralization the personal social services, Suzy Croft Peter Beresford violence, social work the emergence of dangerousness, Nigel Parton Neil Small unemployment, cod's head soup radical social work, Jennie Popay Yvonne Dhooge and for those of us who are black? - black politics in social work, Michael Hutchinson-Reis it's up to you sisters - black women radical social work, Naseem Shah challenging dependency - towards a new social work with older people, Chris Phillipson health issues, social services democracy - steps towards a radical reintegration, Mike Simpkin residential care - what hope for the future?, Bruce Senior community work in recession - a practitioner's perspective, Ian Smith towards a black perspective in social work - a transcultural exploration, John Small radical probation - surviving in a hostile climate, Paul Senior.

Abnormal Justice

This chapter utilizes 'popular' to mean engaged with the popular movements for justice, the movements of which are sometimes referred to as the 'popular classes'. The reality is that social work is a contested profession. There are competing philosophies of practice and engagement within social work that, in turn, reflect different orientations onto the social world. The purpose of re-discovering and establishing the range and extent of 'popular social work' projects is to emphasise several things. First, that social work has always been, and remains, a deeply contested project: there is no single entity 'social work'. Second, social work is enriched by engaging with new, innovative and 'popular' forms of work that originate outside of the profession's self-imposed boundaries. On the horizontal plain is 'official social work'. On the left is a pathologising, controlling social work, on the right 'radical social work', with the majority of social workers floating between the two poles.

Radical social work is often associated with an understanding of society based on Marxist ideas, above all, the idea that we live in a society in which the central division (though clearly not the only division) is class. While that tradition has been important in shaping radical social work theory and practice both in the 1970s and currently, it has not been the only source of critical thinking within social work. Feminist and anti-racist approaches, for example, have also been influential, as have approaches based on identity politics more generally (essentially, the idea that only those experiencing a particular form of oppression can either define it or fight against it). While postmodern and post-structuralist approaches have had less influence in social work than in other academic disciplines, in Australia, Canada and, especially, the US, they have shaped much of the critical social work literature. In previous publications, we have sought to provide an assessment of different strands of critical social work thought including postmodernism, post-structuralism and identity politics, as well as exploring the roots of oppression and alienation. Rather than repeating the arguments presented there, we would refer readers to these earlier writings (Ferguson and Lavalette, 1999; Ferguson et al, 2002; Ferguson, 2008; Lavalette, 2011). Rather, our intention here is to look at what are often new takes on older questions. As an example, two prominent social work academics, Mel Gray and Stephen Webb, have suggested that current developments in political theory and political philosophy, notably, the work of Nancy Fraser, Axel Honneth and Alain Badiou, ‘have the potential to galvanize a new politics of social work by innovatively reworking agendas on social justice and solidarity, of political possibility, and transformative ideas relating to universal emancipation and freedom’ (Gray and Webb, 2013: 4).

Previous articleNext article FreeReflections on the Journal of the Society for Social Work and ResearchJeffrey M. JensonJeffrey M. JensonUniversity of Denver Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreI am pleased to offer a few reflections on the evolution, progress, and current status of the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research (JSSWR) as I end my tenure as editor-in-chief.My involvement in efforts led by the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) to publish high-quality scientific articles began in 2005 when I co-chaired the SSWR Presidential Task Force on Publications with President Anne E. (Ricky) Fortune. Our task force found that manuscript submission and review processes of many social work journals were hindered by lengthy manuscript review periods, inconsistent quality in manuscript reviews, and extensive publication backlogs (Jenson et al., 2008). The vison of a new SSWR-sponsored journal was seen as an opportunity to create a publication outlet that was not plagued by the inadequacies identified in the task force report. JSSWR was launched in 2009 to fill a void in both rigor and process in social work journals at the time (Fong, Gehlert, Marsh, Uehara, & Williams, 2019). Founding Editor-in-Chief Mark Fraser noted in the inaugural issue that “JSSWR is a scholarly journal that is committed to the rapid dissemination of research that informs practice, evaluates social and health programs, assesses public policies, and encourages further research (Fraser & Wyant, 2010, p. i).”Begun in a self-published, open-access format, the journal enjoyed early success that quickly outstripped the capacity of its publication platform and infrastructure. As chairperson of SSWR’s Committee on Publications (COP) at the time, I led an effort to select a new publisher for JSSWR in 2012. This was a collaborative effort involving COP members, SSWR staff and board members, and the JSSWR editorial team. We reviewed five proposals from well-known publishers, and the SSWR Board selected the University of Chicago Press as its publisher in 2014 (Fong et al., 2019). This decision moved JSSWR from an open-access format to a hybrid publication model that includes subscription-based print and online-first articles as well as some open-access articles.The journal’s early years provided a solid foundation for the progress we made during my 4 years as editor-in-chief (2016–2020). I am pleased to report that JSSWR is thriving and poised to take significant strides in the future. We received 127 submissions in 2019—more than in any past year. Our manuscript acceptance rate remains low at 21%, suggesting that we are publishing some of our field’s highest quality research. To address the increase in the number of submissions, the SSWR Board recently approved an expansion in the number of pages published in the journal each year. Finally, true to its founding principles, JSSWR has maintained its reputation for the rapid turnaround and rigor of its publications. In 2019, reviewers completed reviews in 19 days, on average, and the average turnaround time from submission to first decision was 42 days.The impact of manuscripts published in the journal continues to grow. JSSWR received its first impact factor score from Journal Citation Reports in June 2016. Our initial score was .688, which placed us No. 31 of 42 journals in the social work category. Circulation and access to online articles have continued to increase since our first score, and in the 2018 Journal Citation Reports (published in June 2019), our impact factor improved to 1.508. JSSWR is now ranked No. 10 among all social work journals. In a recent article published in Research on Social Work Practice, JSSWR was ranked No. 2 in both overall quality and prestige among 64 journals in the field by a sample of 307 tenure-track social work faculty (Hodge, Yu, & Kim, 2019). JSSWR articles had 547 general and news media references in 2019—a substantial uptick in our visibility beyond academia—and we established a social media presence on Twitter to promote research published in the journal. In addition, in 2019 JSSWR established an Early Career Reviewer Program to provide mentoring to early career researchers interested in developing skills associated with reviewing research articles. Eleven early career reviewers were selected in the program’s first year.We published several special sections and issues during my tenure as editor-in-chief. These include special issues on the etiology and treatment of severe mental illness (Jenson, Solomon, & Gioia, 2016) and on the social work Grand Challenge to Ensure Healthy Development for All Youth (Jenson, Shapiro, & Bender, 2018). Special sections of the journal have been devoted to the implementation of the Grand Challenges for Social Work Initiative (Jenson & Uehara, 2017), social work and neuroscience (Jenson & Eack, 2018), and public impact scholarship in social work (Jenson, Sliva, & Greenfield, 2019). Invited articles from awardees of the Aaron Rosen Lecture at the annual SSWR conference have been featured in each of the past 4 years. Finally, an invited article coauthored by five past presidents of SSWR (Fong et al., 2019) provided a historical perspective of the evolution of the society from 2008 to 2018.It was a privilege to be part of JSSWR’s origins, to serve as an associate editor from 2010 to 2015, and to lead the journal as editor-in-chief from 2016 to 2020. As I conclude my term as editor-in-chief, I am grateful for the outstanding work of our associate editors and peer reviewers, who have made our success possible. I also appreciate the commitment of COP members and the SSWR Board and staff. My work as editor-in-chief has been supported by Dean Amanda Moore McBride of the University of Denver Graduate School of Social Work, whose commitment to the journal and passion for promoting science and social work have been critical supports during my years as editor-in-chief. Finally, I am particularly grateful to Chelsey Baker-Hauck, JSSWR’s outstanding managing editor. Many of you have had the opportunity to work on manuscripts with Chelsey and know the important role she plays in the life of the journal. I am happy to report that Chelsey will be continuing her managing editor role in the future. Todd Herrenkohl of the University of Michigan, whose comments follow in this issue (Herrenkohl, 2020) assumes the editor-in-chief role with the publication of this issue. He is an outstanding scholar who is well-positioned to lead JSSWR to new achievements and milestones.I appreciate the opportunity I have had to share exceptional social work science with the world as JSSWR editor-in-chief. Thank you all for your interest and support.NotesJeffrey M. Jenson, PhD, is the Philip D. & Eleanor G. Winn Endowed Professor for Children and Youth at the University of Denver Graduate School of Social Work.Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to Jeffrey M. Jenson, University of Denver, Graduate School of Social Work, 2148 S. High St., Denver, CO 80208 or via e-mail to [email protected]ReferencesFong, R., Gehlert, S., Marsh, J. C., Uehara, E. S., & Williams, J. H. (2019). Reflections on the history of the Society for Social Work and Research, 2008–2018. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 10(2), 189–211. https://doi.org/10.1086/702826First citation in articleLinkGoogle ScholarFraser, M. W., & Wyant, D. (2010). Introduction to the inaugural issue. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 1(1), i–ii. https://doi.org/10.5243/JSSWR11000First citation in articleGoogle ScholarHerrenkohl, T. I. (2020). The future of the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 11(2), 161–163. https://doi.org/10.1086/709437First citation in articleAbstractGoogle ScholarHodge, D. R., Yu, M., & Kim, A. (2019). Assessing the quality and prestige of disciplinary social work journals: A national study of faculty perceptions. Research on Social Work Practice, 30, 451–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731519890402First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarJenson, J. M., & Eack, S. M. (Eds.). (2018). Social work and neuroscience [Special section]. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 9(2), 217–358. Retrieved from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/jsswr/2018/9/2First citation in articleLinkGoogle ScholarJenson, J. M., Fortune, A. E., Ashford, J. B., Baer, J. C., Barth, R. P., Cohen, B., … Shanks, T. R. W. (2008). Journal publication practices in social work: Final report from the Society for Social Work and Research Presidential Task Force on Publications. Washington, DC: Society for Social Work and Research.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarJenson, J. M., Shapiro, V. B., & Bender, K. (Eds.). (2018). Ensuring healthy development for all youth through the power of prevention [Special issue]. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 9(4). Retrieved from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/jsswr/2018/9/4First citation in articleGoogle ScholarJenson, J. M., Sliva, S. M., & Greenfield, J. C. (Eds.). (2019). Public impact scholarship in social work [Special section]. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 10(4), 529–621. Retrieved from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/jsswr/2019/10/4First citation in articleLinkGoogle ScholarJenson, J. M., Solomon, P., & Gioia, D. (Eds.). (2016). The etiology and treatment of severe mental illness [Special issue]. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 7(2). Retrieved from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/jsswr/2016/7/2First citation in articleGoogle ScholarJenson, J. M., & Uehara, E. S. (Eds.). (2017). Implementing the Grand Challenges for Social Work Initiative [Special section]. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 8(1), 71–159. Retrieved from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/jsswr/2017/8/1First citation in articleLinkGoogle Scholar Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research Volume 11, Number 2Summer 2020 Published for the Society for Social Work and Research Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/709454HistoryPublished online June 23, 2020 KeywordsSociety for Social Work and Researchsocial worksocial scienceresearchpublishing© 2020 by the Society for Social Work and Research. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

In this era of neoliberalism, social work in the United States is arguably overly professionalized and privatized, and has almost lost its activists roots in working for social justice. Radical social work rooted in macro-level community-based practice has been in crisis over the past three decades. The rise of socially engaged art has become more prominent in the United States even as social work has strayed away from its basic tenets such as community practice, advocacy, and social action. How should the social work profession interpret the rise of socially engaged art-already a trend in the art world-whose modality and purpose resembles radical social work? By comparing and contrasting the similarities and differences between radical social work and socially engaged art, this article examines the possibility of consilience between the two and the implications for the social work profession.

Disciplinary knowledge is reflected, legitimated, and replicated in academic journals, social work knowledge reproducing mainly Western knowledge(s). Hence, there has been an increase in the calls for a stronger articulation and inclusion of critical alternatives. Using a critical social work lens, we explored whether and how social work journals reproduce alternative knowledges. We developed a novel global list of all 272 social work journals and invited journal editors to respond to a virtual, exploratory qualitative survey. Through our reflexive thematic analysis, we identified two core themes in the 31 responses – the journal editors’ attachment to dominant, white, western social work knowledge and values, and their rhetorical inclusion of alternative knowledges. Alternative knowledges were seldom constructed as subjugated voices, but rather as innovation, gaps, or international perspectives. Despite agreeing that social work journals should include of a variety of knowledges, few journals created intentional space for subordinated knowledges. A disciplining mechanism that excludes/minimizes the alternative voices, and invalidates their experience was used to avoid attention to marginalized and silenced perspectives. Such processes impoverish social work knowledge. To enrich social work knowledge, journal editors should act intentionally, collectively, and critically to identify critical alternative knowledges and facilitate their inclusion in the social work canon.