The Branding of a Profession: Time to Reflect

Abstract

Many years ago, the medical social work department I was leading decided to get buttons for social work month. Most of the buttons announced the Power of or just acknowledged the arrival of Work Month. Self-marketing in a host organization is always a tricky, courageous endeavor. The group, creative as they were, made up some special buttons, presented individually. I received one that declared, Social Workers: Some are Heterosexual, Male Republicans! Though I am a registered Democrat, I likely admitted, at some point, that I did vote for Reagan (twice) and George Bush--the father (once). My customized present was meant as a joke. I took it as such, thought it was funny and, perhaps, evidence that the culture in this diverse department went beyond political correctness to something more intimate and collaborative. Yet there was likely something more at play. At the core of the department's satire was an understanding that I was, at least demographically, not the typical social worker. In many ways, I was the minority, or perhaps an intruder, and had been such throughout my professional career. Several years later, after completing a 10-year path to a PhD, I applied to several tenure- and nontenure-track faculty positions. Curiously, many of the job announcements had a tag line. Typically, it mentioned how women, people of color, or other underrepresented minorities were encouraged to apply. I am a competitive, achievement-oriented individual and took no real offense but understood that all--except a white, heterosexual male--seemed to be favored in this endeavor. Counterbalancing this stealth-like rejection was the affirmation that during various adjunct teaching assignments, a diverse sampling of students would often comment on the need for more male teachers and mentors. Most interesting to me was the subtle discrimination by deduction. Though worded to avoid legal repercussions, the singling out of one demographic group for exclusion is discrimination. Ironically, the target group of the exclusion was itself underrepresented in the profession. It seemed comical, much like a Dilbert cartoon, but not all that surprising. I had often been critical of our profession for branding itself behind ideology versus competencies. Perhaps this was one of those instances. MACRO REFLECTIONS ON A PROFESSION'S CULTURE Fast-forward to the present, and I am sitting in my office reviewing the new social work competencies set forth by the Council on Work Education (2008). It is not surprising that I tend to gravitate toward those less ideological in nature. As my eyes dart across critical thinking and research-informed practice to client engagement, my attention was diverted to the competency of diversity, specifically the cultural awareness piece. A critical piece of competency-based education is that students recognize the extent and impact of the structure of culture and values and their effect on stakeholders. This raised a question that likely lurked slightly below my awareness: How often do we, as social workers, reflect on the nuances of our profession? Are we so arrogant as to think that because our work is well intended, all is pristine and not in need of periodic consideration? Are we as self-aware regarding the profession's collective values and biases (assuming we believe there are any) as we hopefully are about our own? All organizations and professions have cultures, many are complex and multilayered. What is the current culture of social work? Has it changed, evolved, or devolved during the past decades? Where are the power sources? Who has influence, and who does not? What are the gatekeeper practices and strategies? Are there subtle institutional biases and blind spots that not all can see? Is the profession situated too far left or too far right for a majority of its members? Are we politically positioned according to the wishes of the majority or those of the powerful few? …