Students challenge the academy: progressive theory and the teaching of ethics.

Noble, Carolyn ; Briskman, Linda

Introduction

Philosophical underpinnings of social work codes of ethics have, in recent years, been questioned by a variety of social work academics and practitioners (Banks 1995; Gaha 1996; Riley 1996; De Maria 1997). These concerns have generally been raised by those who subscribe to structural, feminist and/or radical theoretical positions. What has been less explored are the implications these underpinnings have for practice, and how they are pedagogically unravelled in the process of social work education. To our knowledge, there have been few endeavours to engage in discussion with students about the teaching of ethics and the issues which arise from practicum. Consequently, we set out to explore this perspective.

The focus of this inquiry was to explore with social work students in 'progressive' schools of social work their perceptions of the link between the philosophy of the teaching program and the teaching and application of social work ethics in their practicum. In particular, we were interested in ascertaining if any tension between the current Australian Association of Social Workers' (AASW) Code of Ethics (1990) and the 'progressive' teaching philosophy in these courses was experienced by students and, again, how this impacted on their practicum. For the purpose of this study 'progressive' was defined as having a social work curriculum which explicitly defines its teaching philosophy as being informed by a structural/feminist perspective. This is consistent with critiques evident in the literature (Mullaly 1997; Leonard 1997; Banks 1995).

This endeavour arose from concerns that we as social work educators had about the differences between progressive and the more traditional aspect of social work and the relationship between these differing theoretical perspectives and the current Code of Ethics. This, in turn, raised other issues. In particular, how did we as educators deal with students in instances where clashes in students' progressive theory collided with the more conservative agency perspectives? Given the increasingly conservative agenda in welfare service provision, as a result of the current economic and political context, it seemed likely to us that clashes would occur more and more with students on placement. In the main, student performances on placement are assessed on their ability to act ethically irrespective of their political framework. It was this assumed position, that ethical behaviour was politically neutral and could therefore be set aside from the socio-political activity of practice, that was of concern to us.

Consistent with the views of many other social work academics (Mullaly 1997; Leonard 1997; Dominelli and McLeod 1989), we question the current socio-political arrangements and their underlying moral, philosophical and ideological perspective. Yet, according to our knowledge and experience, little attention had been given to applying this critique in respect of the Code of Ethics. However, increasingly, the debate about ethical behaviour as needing to acknowledge and address the social, political and historical context in which it occurs as well as the 'purpose' it serves is gaining recognition (Rhodes 1992; Banks 1995; Hugman and Smith 1995; Rossiter, Prilleltensky and Bowers 1996). As a result of this critique the concept of a politically neutral code can no longer be assumed, and consequentially its use and value for progressive practice comes into question. If this is so what, then, are the implications for students on placement and the teaching of ethics in progressive courses? We turned to students of social work for an exploration of these issues. This article discusses the results of this exploratory study.

The Academy, the Field and the Debates

The late 1970s saw many established social work courses around Australia revise and, in the newer, post 1990 courses, develop curricula to incorporate radical, structural/feminist perspectives emphasising the multiple sites of diversity and difference in social and political relations. In particular, the significance of power relations associated with class, gender, age, ethnicity, sexuality and ability were highlighted in the core educational philosophy. More latterly, the notions of difference, identity and the particularities of individuals are being emphasised in curriculum design. This newer theoretical perspective, inspired to some extent by the postmodernist critique, challenges the universal notion towards grand assertions of understanding the impact of structural disadvantage and for developing general social change strategies. It makes for an exciting time in theory and curriculum development as the debate between the 'local' and the 'universal' works itself out.

While social work theory development might be engaging in progressive debates in the universities responsible for the education of social workers, the social and political climate in the human services sector where social workers find employment has gradually moved, in the wake of economic recession, back to a more neo-conservative stance with regard to economic and social politics and cultural practices. The new conservative federal government is intent on reducing the size of the public sector, reinstating its belief in the family as the primary foundation for social and welfare needs and contributing to the undermining of multicultural voices by the Anglophone majority of middle Australia (George and Napier 1997). Managerialism, efficiency, cost cutting, out-sourcing, accountability and self reliance in workplace negotiations characterise the 'new' political agenda of the Howard government and, in turn, are coming to dominate social work practice and policy discourse (George and Napier 1997). No longer relevant and now deemed 'politically incorrect' are notions of social justice, equality, respecting and including difference, rights and community responsibility based on ideas of equity and acceptance of diversity.

The privileging of economic rationalism over social justice and equity issues in the welfare sector dramatically highlights the contradictions between progressive theory and conservative practice where progressive theory asserts social justice concepts and justifies equality, and conservative practice asserts managerialism and justifies exclusion. The conservative backlash is having a dramatic impact on the provision of services and programs and, we would argue, is in danger of undermining a historical commitment to a culture supporting a strong welfare state, where redistribution of wealth and access to a just and fair provision of resources and services are part of its discourse (Ife 1997). However, as we have argued elsewhere, the progressive view of social work sits almost in defiance of the more traditional view of social work where the individual rights and responsibilities frame the dominant ideology (Noble and Briskman 1996a, 1996b).

Social work places great importance on ethical standards and guidelines, where having a unified and universal code of ethics is judged as essential to professional practice (Banks 1995; Hugman and Smith 1995). Siggens (1996) argues that the increasing concern about ethics and professional codes of practice in all areas of human service work as well as in industry and business has more to do with the growth of consumer movements and their demand for consumer accountability than practice standards. Rossiter et al (1996) criticise social work codes as forms of individualism that deny structural influences and our previous research questions the relevance of the Western codes to progressive practice (Noble and Briskman 1996a, 1996b). Further, De Maria (1997) asks whether the Australian Code should or should not engage with politics and support activism and Gaha (1996) draws attention to its lack of indigenous perspectives on ethical positions. However, despite these criticisms there is general consensus that some guidelines to ethical standards are essential (Hugman and Smith 1995). Aldridge (1996) argues that the pressure for market driven health and welfare services increases the need for strong professional strategies in which a uniform code is essential in order to protect both workers' and clients' rights to self-determination.

Progressive Teaching and the Code: Students Speak Out

The focus of our endeavour was to explore with social work students any perceived dissonance between progressive theory and the teaching and application of social work ethics and how (if at all) this impacted on their practicum. Final year students from a university in Melbourne and a university in Sydney were asked to participate in this study on a volunteer basis. Two groups of students agreed to participate and, as a result, a focus group consisting of third and final year social work students, in a feminist elective class, was engaged in discussions in the Melbourne university and a self selected group of final year students was formed in a university in Sydney. A total of twenty two students participated, twelve in Melbourne and ten in Sydney.

A semi-structured group interview was used to direct the discussions. Although the groups had different constituent members their shared experiences in a progressive course where structural/feminism was the core educational philosophy provided a common experience. By drawing out the main issues raised in each group, we hoped to identify some answers to our research focus and establish leads for further inquiry. A summary of the main discussion points of each focus group is presented below covering the areas of: knowledge of the Code; the teaching of the Code; theoretical focus of the course; theory and practice clash; and practice implications. Given the access to small sample sizes it must be acknowledged that this study is exploratory and results presented here are suggestive only.

Knowledge of the Code

Sydney Group

The first area of inquiry was concerned with students' knowledge of the Code. The Sydney group stated that although they were familiar with the Code especially such aspects as confidentiality, privacy, self-determination, development of knowledge, commitment to social justice, there were differences within the group. These ranged from limited to comprehensive in understanding its relationship to, and implications for, professional practice. There was general agreement that having a Code was, in some way, important. As one participant stated 'it helps us keep our finger on the pulse', and therefore up to date with current ethical issues as defined by the AASW. However, all participants agreed that there was little attempt in their course to relate the Code to professional development.

Melbourne Group

There were differences of opinion as to whether this group had actually seen or been given a copy of the Code during their course. For some of the students participating in this research it was the first time they had actually seen (and read) the Code in its entirety. Although they were generally familiar with concepts like confidentially, self-determination , social justice and development of knowledge, according to these students, these concepts seem to just filter through. Even for those students who recalled being given a copy of the Code it had not subsequently been referred to in a meaningful way. This situation was identified as a significant omission in their course and one which should be addressed by those teaching the social work theory and practice subjects.

Teaching the Code of Ethics

Sydney Group

The Sydney students readily identified several curriculum subjects where the Code was singled out for both discussion and critique. Most agreed that there were opportunities to develop in-depth analysis, but only as part of individual student assignments if students chose the Code of Ethics as a topic for further research. All students in this group agreed that the significant aspects like confidentiality and commitment to social justice were adequately covered throughout their course. However, there was limited opportunity to evaluate the whole document in relation to professional integrity or professional conduct. This aspect was left to field placements but, as there seemed to be discrepancies between agencies and supervisors, it was not always possible to ensure its adequate coverage. In the teaching of the Code, their experience was that many lecturers were ambivalent about its importance and were sceptical about it as a document to guide practice. This situation created, for them, uncertainty as to its value and importance and whether it was useful to take up membership with the AASW upon graduating. Others stated that very few social workers from practicum belonged to the AASW, and as a result, their emerging doubts were reinforced in the field.

Melbourne Group

The Melbourne group, in reflecting on the teaching of the Code, stated that none of the academic staff had developed an effective way of teaching ethics. In fact how it was taught, they argued, depended on who was teaching it, including whether or not they were members of the AASW and what their interests were, thus making the teaching of ethics quite idiosyncratic. All students acknowledged there were implications of going into fieldwork with limited knowledge of the Code, especially the legal implications. To this end it was suggested that the Code should be taught and critiqued in the first year and referred to more thoroughly throughout the course. One student commented that she learnt about the agency's ethics in placement, but this was not related back to the AASW Code. In supporting this, other students commented that the attention to ethics, from their experiences in placement, was in fact organisationally driven where the notion of individualism prevailed.

Theoretical Focus of Course

Sydney Group

Students entering the Sydney course from Year One had a clear idea of the philosophy of the course with its emphasis on a structural/feminist perspective encouraging a non-discriminatory approach to practice. However, for students entering the third year (as a result of 'prior learning') there was confusion as to what theoretical perspective informed the teaching. One student questioned the over-emphasis on feminism and whether it was educationally appropriate to promote this at the expense of other theories and argued for the need to be non-judgemental in promoting various world views. By way of an example, this student doubted whether an 'extreme right-winger' would ever find their way onto the teaching staff. As a result it was impossible to really challenge or critique the dominant theoretical view promoted by the university. In particular the feminist 'overkill' emphasised in the course philosophy reinforced by the 'in group' behaviour of the predominantly female staff limited students on placement where they were faced with many other, sometimes competing, world views. In hospitals, for example, it was not possible to frame practice within a feminist perspective, the multi-disciplinary approach of other professionals also needed consideration. Other students said that there was encouragement to define and develop their own views and encouragement to be open to other perspectives. In particular, several of the women students stated that feminism made sense to them and helped them define their world view and therefore they were committed to work in areas of practice more suited to this perspective.

Melbourne Group

The Melbourne group was more supportive of the structural/feminist perspective and critiqued the Code as being conservative in this regard. There was acknowledgment that the course was aiming for anti-discriminatory practice and looking for a practice which is cross-culturally sensitive. While this perspective was quite specific in its theoretical considerations, participants felt that it was difficult to define an explicit framework for practice. It was suggested that a more conscious teaching of the Code, with opportunities for critique, should be more of a focus in the course and, in this way, it may be possible to act differently. There was concern about the 'rampant individualism' in agencies and policy development, without much engagement with the university's current teaching emphasis and the new dilemmas that arise for the students as a result. One student particularly drew attention to the relevance of Philosophy and the study of ethics as useful for developing a more living Code and stated that this subject should form a part of the undergraduate education. All agreed that the current Code tries to get a balance between structural theory, with its emphasis on feminist and anti-racist practice, and the more traditional approach which encourages individually focused explanations and social change strategies. "What about a women-centred code of ethics?" one student suggested.

Theory and Practice Clash

Sydney Group

The Sydney students felt that having general statements on principles and practice standards in the Code's preamble could be interpreted in many ways to support your practice ideology, from conservative to socialist/feminist. There was general support for the Code not to be too prescriptive and support given for its more generalist, ambiguous stance in order for practitioners to work out their own framework in relation to their unique practice settings and ideological commitments. Several students commented that in order to get a job and stay in a job you might have to adopt, as one student explained, a 'more right wing stance' as many social workers and agencies seem to be informed by this perspective. The tension between progressive theory and practice reality (sometimes) demanded a choice between these competing perspectives with the reality of working in an increasingly conservative welfare sector inevitably limiting one's choice. This tension could be avoided in other areas of social work like community work or more politically-based work consistent with a progressive stance, for example working with refugees and women's sexual health services. In the main, most of the students in this group were more critical of what they saw as a 'theory push' in the overall course philosophy than they were of the Code's limits in supporting a more critical stance.

Melbourne Group

The Melbourne group seemed more committed to maintaining a critical stance and exploring ways in which social workers could act differently in relation to more radical ethics. There was agreement that the current Code reinforced a more individualist stance supporting the status quo "no matter if you are a Maori, Aboriginal or Islander". However, on closer reflection, many students agreed that it was difficult to work out how to change the existing Code without making it more prescriptive than it already was. Additionally, the increasing focus on quality management and social work accountability means some sort of Code is needed to ensure quality and accountability. Conversely a Code of Ethics can also provide a framework to resist these imperatives in light of a more progressive stance.

Practice Implications

Sydney Group

All participants in the Sydney group said that knowledge of the Code was important but it wasn't until field practice that its significance was realised. It had something to do, they suggested, with status and the integrity of the profession where it was important to be able to define yourself in relation to other disciplines, for example psychology. It was also important, they said, to have the Code as a guide as to how to act and as a means to define what social workers actually do. Having a strong professional identity defined through a Code provided a framework, a perspective because "anyone can call themselves social workers [so] having this perspective and framework forms part of your identity". However, most stated that on placement they relied on the supervisor's interpretation of ethical behaviour as a guide for their own learning, but, as most supervisors didn't belong to the AASW there was doubt as to what was informing their practice. This situation raised further doubts about the value of this instruction. This situation, they said, also threw doubt on the value of the Code in the reality of practice where social workers were not committed to the profession or up-to-date with professional developments as a consequence of not maintaining their membership.

Melbourne Group

The Melbourne group also acknowledged the value of ethical guidelines but identified discrepancies between principles of the Code and what was occurring in practice, both at the university and in the field. In placement students were learning the content, like confidentiality, self-determination and commitment to social justice without directly relating these back to the document. As one participant said, "it's sort of a moral thing ... we do not discriminate against people or we should do various things, but this is not related [back] to the Code". Many stated that, from their experience, the Code was vague and too general and therefore open to interpretations, to individual choices and preferences, undermining its collective value as a guide for practice standards and ethical behaviour. As a specific guide to practice it could help some individual social workers, but as nowadays many practice in multi-disciplinary settings it was limited and out of date in this regard, irrelevant for the majority of workers in the current workplace setting.

From this exploratory study the following key points emerge:

* Students' knowledge of the Code of Ethics ranged from total unfamiliarity to limited knowledge of the Code with only a few students claiming comprehensive knowledge.

* All students had awareness of practice issues such as confidentially, selfdetermination and commitment to social justice but most were unfamiliar with issues concerning professional integrity and conduct.

* All experienced limited opportunity to critique the Code in their courses. This was also true with regard to critiquing the progressive theory of the course although there were some students who said they felt there was some opportunity to define and develop their own world views.

* Students were getting mixed messages in the teaching of the Code with some students experiencing the teaching as idiosyncratic as many teachers were ambivalent about its importance and were sceptical about it as a document to guide practice when it was discussed.

* The attention to ethics was, in the main, left to the agencies where, again the teaching of ethics was dependent on the field supervisors' knowledge and commitment to the Code. Most students said that supervisors, in their experience, either did not base their practice teaching on the current Code but relied instead on agency-based guidelines as a way to guide ethical behaviour.

* Students did not identify any dissonance between the philosophy of their course and the teaching of ethics, rather they were concerned with the lack of attention to the teaching of the Code in the context of their placement experiences.

* Students' experience of agency practice emphasised the individual focus of agency guidelines contradicting the university's emphasis on structural influences and social dependence in dealing with clients and policy development.

* Students supported what they felt were general and ambiguous statements about social justice and equity principles which could be interpreted in ways which could potentially fit any number of ideological perspectives. The Melbourne group didn't know how this could change without more discussion and critique in their course, so that social workers could act differently.

* Overall there was support for having a Code that was not too prescriptive in order to ensure professional standards essential to professional, accountable practice which also allowed for individual interpretation for differing ideological positions.

Discussion

This study set out to examine whether students perceived or experienced any differences between the teaching of progressive theory in social work courses and actual practice situations, given the conservative backlash of the current socio-political context. The privileging of managerialism and individualism in agency work, as standing in opposition to the more critical focus of their course was acknowledged by both groups of students. In response most students argued for the inevitability of having to give precedence to agency practices and realities over theory, or using the general nature of the Code's content for individual interpretation to minimise any potential conflict. Most students felt the latter was possible as there was broad agreement that the current Code was general enough for individual interpretation that could balance either the progressive or conservative stance without too much difficulty.

The overall perspective of these students was that, in clashes between practice and theory, they felt that agencies, in their experiences, were flexible enough to allow for individual work (based on differing political perspectives) to occur, or, for themselves to accept the agency's philosophy or agency-based guidelines as having precedence over theory. Additionally, this conflict could be minimised, according to the Sydney students, by the teaching of other theoretical perspectives which may be more useful to the reality of practice situations in addition to the existing structural/feminist perspective. Conversely, as indicated by the Melbourne students, the conflict could be minimised by teachers concentrating on more critical teaching of ethics so that it may be possible to act differently in practice. Additionally, as most students did not have field supervisors who were working exclusively within the Code's guidelines or who were not sufficiently aware of the actual Code themselves, any tensions between theory and practice could possibly be avoided all together.

Overall, students felt there was little attention to the teaching of ethics in preparation for their practicum experiences. When it was addressed most students said that they were limited in being able to evaluate the current Code against the theoretical perspective being emphasised in their course, as there was very little opportunity to study and critique it during their education. This situation was seen as a major omission of the course and one which should be rectified in the first year of study. The Melbourne students did not identify any real attempt or effective way of teaching, by academics, that incorporated the Code and a critique of it and, when there was some opportunity, as in the Sydney course, it was only if students chose this option.

As students are largely assessed on their ability to forge the links between theory and practice within an ethical discourse, their rejection of the 'fit' between progressive theory and practice raises issues about what the relationship with what is being taught and the realities in practice. This, in turn, raises issues about its implication for the evaluation of students on placement. Additionally, the fact that the AASW Code, according to these groups of students, was largely ignored by agencies, raised further issues of its perceived relevance to the actual experiences in the field. We are left then with the question of how to teach ethics in progressive courses in a way that is responsive to the realities of the field, and, conversely how to engage the field more wholeheartedly with current teaching in the academy.

Conclusion

While this study constitutes a small sample and must be regarded as a preliminary exploration, it has, nevertheless, identified several factors as important in assessing the 'fit' between progressive theory and students' experiences on placement. This suggests to us that a more rigorous evaluation of the teaching of the Code in line with the philosophical intent of progressive social work courses is needed. Additionally, teachers need to engage field supervisors more actively with the theoretical content of their courses and, conversely engage more actively with field supervisors and the realities of the field. This is particularly urgent in light of the increasing conservatism of the welfare sector. Finally, further research into this aspect of social work education will shed some light as to whether the teaching deficits, identified in this inquiry, are found elsewhere. While the evaluation of the AASW Code in the education of social work students in progressive courses receives insufficient and inconsistent attention in both the academy and the field, issues which have the potential to create tensions with students on placement remain sidestepped.

References

Aldridge M. (1996) 'Dragged to Market: Being a Profession in the Post-Modern World', British Journal of Social Work, 26 (2), 177-194.

Australian Association of Social Work (1990) Code of Ethics, Australian Association of Social Work, Canberra.

Banks S.(1995) Ethics and Values in Social Work, Macmillan, London.

De Maria W. (1997) 'Flapping on clipped wings: Social work ethics in the age of activism', Australian Social Work, 50 (4), 3-19.

Dominelli L and McLeod E. (1989) Feminist Social Work, Macmillan, London.

Gaha J. (1996) 'A Professional Code of Ethics--An Imperfect Regulator', Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics, Wagga Wagga, October, 100-105.

George J and Napier L. (1997) 'Contestable Concepts in the Social Work Curriculum', paper presented at the Australian Association of Social Work and Welfare Education, Conference, September, Canberra.

Hugman R. and Smith D. (1995) Ethical Issues in Social Work, Routledge, London.

Ife, J. (1997) Rethinking Social Work: Toward critical practice, Longman, Melbourne.

Leonard P (1997) Postmodern Welfare: Reconstructing an emancipatory project, Sage Publications, London.

Mullaly R. (1997) Structural Social Work: Ideology, Theory and Practice, (second edition), Oxford University Press, Toronto.

Noble C and Briskman L. (1996a) 'Social Work Ethics: Is a moral consensus possible', Women in Welfare Education Journal, 2, 53-68.

Noble C and Briskman L. (1996b) 'Social Work Ethics: The challenge to moral consensus', New Zealand Association of Social Work Review, 8 (3), September, 2-9.

Rhodes M. L. (1992), 'Social work challenges: the boundaries of ethics', Families in Society, January, 40-47.

Riley A. (1996) 'Murder and Social Work', Australian Social Work, 49 (2), 37-43.

Rossiter A., Prilleltensky I. and Bowers R. W. (1996) 'Learning from broken rules: Individualism, organisation and ethics, Proceedings of Joint World Congress of International Federation of Social Work and the International Association of Schools of Social Work, Hong Kong, 46 - 49.

Siggens I. (1996) 'Professional Codes: Some historical antecedents', in M. Coady and S. Bloch (eds),Code of Ethics and the Professions, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 50-56.

Carolyn Noble (1) and Linda Briskman (2)

(1) Carolyn Noble is a senior lecturer in the Department of Social Policy and Human Services at the University of Western Sydney, Macarthur.

(2) Linda Briskman is a senior lecturer in the School of Social Work at Deakin University.