Where Academia and Policy Meet: A Cross-National Perspective on the Involvement of Social Work Academics in Social Policy 9781447320210

Table of contents :
WHERE ACADEMIA AND POLICY MEET
Contents
List of tables and figures
Notes on the Editors and Contributors
Contributors
Acknowledgements
1. Where academia and policy meet: an introduction
Academia and the policy process
Social work academics as policy actors
The Policy Practice Engagement Framework (PPE)
Exploring the policy role of social work academics
Method
2. Social work academia and policy in Australia
The Australian welfare state
Major characteristics of the welfare state
The neo-liberal transformation
The Australian social work profession
Professional social work discourse on social policy
Method
Findings
Further survey data
Discussion and conclusion
3. Social work academia and policy in China
Social work and social policy in China
Method
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
4. Social work academia and policy in Finland
Social policy, social work and social work education in Finland
Method
Findings
Discussion
5. Social work academia and policy in Germany
Social policy and social work in Germany
Method
Findings
Discussion and conclusion
6. Social work academics and policy in Israel
The Israeli welfare state
Social work in Israel
Social work education in Israel
Method
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
7. Social work academia and policy in Portugal
Development of the Portuguese welfare state
Social work education
The social work profession in Portugal
Method
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
8. Social work academia and policy in Puerto Rico
Method
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
9. Social work academia and policy in South Africa
Social welfare policy in South Africa
Social work and social work education
Method
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
10. Social work academics and policy in Spain
The context: Social work education and the profession in Spain
Method
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
11. Social work academia and policy in Sweden
Swedish social policy
Social work and social work education in Sweden
Method
Findings
Discussion
12. Social work academia and policy in the United Kingdom
The context
Method
Findings
Discussion and conclusion
13. Social work academia and policy in the United States
The US welfare system as the context for social work and social work education
Method
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion and implications
14. Where academia and policy meet: a cross-national perspective
The national cohorts
Policy engagement; Levels, activities, stages and perceived impact
Policy engagement and opportunity
Perceived social role of academia, personal roles and policy resources
Institutional support for policy engagement
Factors associated with policy engagement
Conclusion
Appendix: Questionnaire on social work faculty engagement in the social welfare policy process
Index

Citation preview

WHERE ACADEMIA AND POLICY MEET A cross-national perspective on the involvement of social work academics in social policy

Edited by John Gal and Idit Weiss-Gal

WHERE ACADEMIA AND POLICY MEET A cross-national perspective on the involvement of social work academics in social policy Edited by John Gal and Idit Weiss-Gal

First published in Great Britain in 2017 by Policy Press North America office: University of Bristol Policy Press 1-9 Old Park Hill c/o The University of Chicago Press Bristol 1427 East 60th Street BS2 8BB Chicago, IL 60637, USA UK t: +1 773 702 7700 t: +44 (0)117 954 5940 f: +1 773-702-9756 [email protected] [email protected] www.policypress.co.uk www.press.uchicago.edu © Policy Press 2017 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN 978-1-4473-2019-7 hardcover ISBN 978-1-4473-2021-0 ePdf ISBN 978-1-4473-3541-2 ePub ISBN 978-1-4473-3542-9 Mobi The rights of John Gal and Idit Weiss-Gal to be identified as editors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved: no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of Policy Press. The statements and opinions contained within this publication are solely those of the editors and contributors and not of the University of Bristol or Policy Press. The University of Bristol and Policy Press disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any material published in this publication. Policy Press works to counter discrimination on grounds of gender, race, disability, age and sexuality. Cover design by Policy Press Front cover image: Alamy Printed and bound in Great Britain by by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Policy Press uses environmentally responsible print partners

Contents List of tables and figures v Notes on the Editors and Contributors ix Acknowledgements xv one

Where academia and policy meet: an introduction John Gal and Idit Weiss-Gal

two

Social work academia and policy in Australia Philip Mendes and Susan Baidawi

21

three

Social work academia and policy in China Minchao Jin, Xiao Li, Lei Wu and Jie Lei

41

four

Social work academia and policy in Finland Helena Blomberg and Christian Kroll

59

five

Social work academia and policy in Germany Andreas Herz and Stefan Köngeter

77

six

Social work academics and policy in Israel Idit Weiss-Gal and John Gal

95

seven

Social work academia and policy in Portugal Francisco Branco

117

eight

Social work academia and policy in Puerto Rico Gisela Negrón-Velázquez

133

nine

Social work academia and policy in South Africa Antoinette Lombard

147

ten

Social work academics and policy in Spain 167 María Asunción Martínez-Román and Miguel Ángel Mateo-Pérez

eleven

Social work academia and policy in Sweden Katarina H. Thorén and Pia Tham

twelve

Social work academia and policy in the United Kingdom 201 Hugh McLaughlin and Jo-Pei Tan

thirteen Social work academia and policy in the United States Arati Maleku and Richard Hoefer

iii

1

183

221

Where academia and policy meet

fourteen Where academia and policy meet: a cross-national perspective Idit Weiss-Gal and John Gal

243

Appendix: Questionnaire on social work faculty engagement in the social welfare policy process Idit Weiss-Gal and John Gal

263

Index

273

iv

List of tables and figures List of tables 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

Levels of policy engagement: means, SDs and distribution 29 (N=44) Levels of engagement in policy stages: means, SDs and 30 distribution (N=43) Perceived impact: means, SDs and distribution (N=33–35) 31 Social work roles, resources and correlations with policy 32 engagement Perceived academic environment support (N=43) 33 Regression coefficients (B, β) of the explained variance 34 of policy engagement Internal consistency of the questionnaire 46 Sample description 47 Levels of policy engagement: means, SDs and distribution 48 Levels of engagement in policy stages: means, SDs and 49 distribution (N=100) Perceived impact: means, SDs and distribution (N=99) 50 The associations between the predictors and the level 51 of policy engagement Regression coefficients (B, β) of the explained variance 52 of policy engagement Levels of policy engagement: means, SDs and distribution 66 (N=50) Levels of engagement in policy stages: means, SDs and 67 distribution (N=50) Perceived impact: means, SDs and distribution (N=50) 68 The association between the predictors and the level 71 of policy engagement (N=50) Regression coefficients (B, β) of the explained variance 71 of policy engagement Levels of policy engagement: means, SDs and distribution 83 (N=396) Levels of engagement in policy stages: means, SDs and 84 distribution (N=396) Perceived impact: means, SDs and distribution (N=384) 84 Perceived personal role as a social work scholar (N=396) 86 Personal policy involvement resources (N=390) 86 Perceived level of support for policy engagement (N=310) 87

v

Where academia and policy meet

5.7 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

6.5 7.1 7.2 7.3 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 10.1 10.2

The association between the predictors and the level 87 of policy engagement Regression coefficients (B, β) of the explained variance 88 of policy engagement Levels of policy involvement: means, SDs and distribution 103 (N=143) Levels of involvement in policy stages: means, SDs and 104 distribution (N=143) Perceived impact: means, SDs and distribution (N=143) 105 The associations between organisational support, role 108 perceptions, and resources and level of policy engagement (N=143) Regression coefficients (B, β) of the explained variance 109 of policy engagement (N=143) Levels of policy engagement: means, SDs and distribution 125 (N=110) Levels of engagement in policy stages: means, SDs and 126 distribution (N=103) The associations between the predictors and the level 129 of policy engagement (N=106) Levels of policy engagement: means, SDs and distribution 137 (N=79) Levels of engagement in policy stages: means, SDs and 137 distribution (N=78) Perceived impact: means, SDs and distribution (N=74) 138 The associations between the predictor variables and 141 level of policy engagement (N=77) Regression coefficients (B, β) of the explained variance 142 of policy engagement (N=68) Levels of policy engagement: means, SDs and distribution 153 (N=64) Levels of engagement in policy stages: means, SDs and 154 distribution (N=64) Perceived impact: means, SDs and distribution (N=64) 155 The associations between the predictors and level 158 of policy engagement (N=64) Regression coefficients (B, β) of the explained variance 159 of social work academics’ policy engagement Levels of policy engagement: means, SDs and distribution 172 (N=65) Levels of engagement in policy stages: means, SDs and 173 distribution (N=65)

vi

List of tables and figures

10.3 10.4

Perceived impact: means, SDs and distribution (N=53) 174 The associations between the predictor variables and 176 level of policy engagement (N=65) 10.5 Regression coefficients (B, β) of the explained variance 177 of policy engagement 11.1 Demographics 188 11.2 Levels of policy engagement: means, SDs and distribution 189 (N=283) 11.3 Engagement in policy among social work academics by 191 rank and gender (N=283) 11.4 Level of engagement in policy stages: means, SDs and 191 distribution (N=281–282) 11.5 Perceived impact: means, SDs and distribution (N=283) 193 11.6 Perceived social role of academia and personal roles 193 11.7 Perceived policy resources (N=283) 194 11.8 Perceived support for policy engagement: means and 195 standard deviations (n=267) 11.9 The associations between the predictors and level of 195 policy engagement (n=267) 11.10 Regression coefficients (B, β) of the explained variance 196 of policy engagement 12.1 Social work academics’ demographics 207 12.2 Levels of policy engagement: means, SDs and distribution 209 (N=111) 12.3 Levels of engagement in policy stages: means, SDs and 210 distribution 12.4 Perceived impact: means, SDs and distribution (N=111) 211 12.5 The associations between the predictors and the level 215 of policy engagement 12.6 Regression coefficients (B, β) of the explained variance 216 of policy engagement 13.1 Demographics (N=106) 226 13.2 Levels of policy engagement: means, SDs and distribution 227 13.3 Levels of engagement in the policy stages 229 13.4 Perceived impact: means, SDs and distribution (N=106) 230 13.5 The associations between the predictors and the level of 234 engagement in policy engagement (N=106) 13.6 Regression coefficients (B, β) of the explained variance 234 of policy engagement 14.1 Levels of policy engagement by national cohort (N=1,551) 246 14.2 The most common policy-related activities 247 14.3 The least common policy-related activities 248

vii

Where academia and policy meet

14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.8 14.9 14.10

Engagement in policy stages Perceived impact The perceived social role of academia Perceived roles as social work scholars Perceived policy-related resources Level of environmental support Factors associated with policy engagement

249 250 253 255 256 257 258

List of figures 4.1 4.2 4.3 6.1 6.2 6.3 7.1 7.2 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 9.1 9.2 9.3 10.1 10.2 10.3 12.1 12.2 12.3 13.1 13.2 13.3

Perceived roles as social work scholars (N=50) 69 Perceived policy resources 69 Perceived support for policy engagement (N=50) 70 Perceived roles as social work scholars 106 Perceived policy resources 107 Perceived support for policy engagement 107 Perceived roles as social work scholars 128 Perceived support for policy engagement 128 Perceived social role of academia 139 Perceived roles as social work scholars 139 Perceived resources 140 Organisational support 142 Perceived roles as social work academic (N=64) 156 Perceived policy resources (N=64) 157 Perceived support for policy engagement (N=64) 157 Perceived support for policy engagement 175 Perceived roles as social work scholars 175 Perceived policy-related resources 176 The perceived role of social work academics 212 Personal policy resources 214 Support within academic institution 215 Perceived roles as social work scholars 231 Perceived policy resources 231 Perceived support for policy engagement 233

viii

Notes on the Editors and Contributors John Gal is Full Professor at the Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a principal researcher at the Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel. His fields of interest include social policy in Israel and in the Mediterranean region, and policy practice in social work. Prof. Gal has published extensively in academic journals and has been very much involved in social policy formulation in Israel. Recent books include one on policy practice in Israel, written jointly with Idit Weiss-Gal and published in July 2011, and Social workers affecting social policy: An international perspective, edited with Idit Weiss-Gal, and published by Policy Press in 2014. Idit Weiss-Gal is Associate Professor and Head of the Bob Shapell School of Social Work at Tel Aviv University in Israel. Her fields of research and teaching include policy practice, critical perspectives in social work, and social work as a profession. She has published numerous articles in social work academic publications. Her Hebrewlanguage book, Policy Practice in Social Work, written with John Gal, was published in 2011. In addition, she has edited three crossnational comparative studies: Social workers affecting social policy: An international perspective (with John Gal, 2014); Social Work as a Profession: A Comparative Cross-national Perspective (with Penelope Welbourne, 2007); and Professional Ideologies and Preferences in Social Work: A Global Study (with John Gal and John Dixon, 2003).

Contributors Susan Baidawi is a PhD candidate and Research Officer in the Department of Social Work at Monash University in Victoria, Australia. Her research interests include young people transitioning from state out-of-home care and older people in prison. Helena Blomberg is Professor and Department Chair of Social Work and Social Policy at the Swedish School of Social Science, University of Helsinki, Finland. She was one of the team leaders in the Nordic Centre of Excellence research network, The Nordic Welfare State – Historical Foundations and Future Challenges, and is currently one

ix

Where academia and policy meet

of the scientific coordinators of the consortium project ‘Tackling Inequalities in Time of Austerity’. Her research interests include child welfare issues, social workers’ well-being and attitudes toward welfare policies in a comparative perspective, and policy changes in the welfare state. Francisco Branco is Associate Professor at the Catholic University of Portugal. He has held a PhD in social work (with a specialisation in social policy and social movements) since 2001. He teaches social work history, social research and social policy, and coordinates the PhD in Social Work. Prof Branco is coordinator of the research group on Public Interest Policies and Human Development at the Centre for Studies in Human Development at the university and a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of the international journal Critical and Radical Social Work. His research interests include the development of social work as a profession; social work history; policy practice in social work; and public policies, especially social assistance and social minimum policies. Andreas Herz is Lecturer and Postdoctoral Researcher at the Institute of Social Pedagogy and Organization Studies at the University of Hildesheim, Germany. His key research areas are organizational research, social network research, social support, transnationalisation and migration, methods of empirical social research, and higher education research. Richard Hoefer is the Roy E. Dulak Professor for Community Practice Research at the School of Social Work, University of Texas, Arlington, United States (US). His research and teaching interests include advocacy, social policy, nonprofit management, social enterprise and programme evaluation. He directs the Center for Advocacy, Nonprofit and Donor Organizations as well as the Professional Development Program. In his spare time, he is an avid fencer. Minchao Jin is the Global Network Assistant Professor at New York University Silver School of Social Work, US and New York University, Shanghai, China. Dr. Jin’s research interests include financial inclusion, poverty, child health, and social welfare policy. His work has appeared in Social Science & Medicine, Journal of Social Policy, International Journal of Social Welfare and other journals.

x

Notes on the Editors and Contributors

Stefan Köngeter is Professor for Social Pedagogy at the Department for Education at Trier University, Germany. After finishing his PhD at the University of Hildesheim in 2008, he was Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Hildesheim, and at the University of Toronto, Canada. His research interests comprise a broad range of topics in social pedagogy, social work and sociology: child and youth care; professionalisation of social pedagogy and social work; transnationalisation of welfare knowledge; transition to adulthood; history of the settlement house movement; ethnography; and relational social theories. Christian Kroll is a Senior Lecturer in Social Work and Social Policy at the Swedish School of Social Work, University of Helsinki, Finland and Reader in Social Work at Lund University, Sweden. He has been engaged in the Nordic Centre of Excellence research network, The Nordic Welfare State – Historical Foundations and Future Challenges, and is currently a member of a large project on societal inequalities and their links to the moral and political climate. His main research interests include issues of legitimisation and legitimacy of welfare state reforms and attitude formation among citizens, groups of welfare state clients and welfare state professionals in a comparative perspective. Jie Lei is an associate professor in Social Work at the Department of Sociology and Social Work, Sun Yat-sen University, China. He is also the Deputy Director of the Centre for Social Work Education and Research at the Sun Yat-sen University. Dr Lei has a wide range of research interests in the professionalisation of social work, social assistance and child protection in China. Xiao Li is a Lecturer at Department of Social Work at East China University of Science and Technology. Her current research areas include social work professional development in China, social work education and medical social work practice. Antoinette Lombard is Full Professor in Social Work, and Head of the Department of Social Work & Criminology at the University of Pretoria, South Africa. Her research and teaching fields are in social development and developmental social work and social welfare. She has a particular research interest in integrating social and economic development as intervention strategies for social inclusion and sustainable livelihoods.

xi

Where academia and policy meet

Arati Maleku is an Assistant Professor at the College of Social Work at the Ohio State University, US. Her research interests are in the areas of social determinants of health and health equity, social work education, social policy, community and organisational resilience. She is particularly interested in the areas of intersectionality, communitybased participatory research, and translational science. María-Asunción Martínez-Román is Professor of Social Work and Social Policy at the Department of Social Work and Social Services at the University of Alicante, Spain. She is also a researcher at the Institute for Social Development and Peace, and the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre on Social Inclusion and Health, at the University of Alicante. She leads the journal Alternativas-Cuadernos de Trabajo Social. Miguel Ángel Mateo-Pérez is an Associate Professor of Social Work at the University of Alicante in Spain. He is also a researcher at the Institute for Social Development and Peace at the University of Alicante. He has authored and edited seven books. Hugh McLaughlin is Professor in Social Work at Manchester Metropolitan University. Before entering academia he worked as a practitioner, manager and senior manager in local authority children’s services. His research interests include the meaningful involvement of service users in social work education and research, critical professional practice and learning organisations. He is Editor-in-Chief of the international journal Social Work Education and when not working likes to run or go scuba diving in warmer climates. Philip Mendes is Associate Professor in the Department of Social Work at Monash University in Victoria, Australia. He teaches social policy and community development, and is the Director of the Social Inclusion and Social Policy Research Unit. He is the author or coauthor of 10 books including Young people transitioning from out-ofhome care: International research, policy and practice co-edited with Pamela Snow (Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming 2016), and a third edition of Australia’s Welfare Wars (forthcoming late 2016). Gisela Negrón-Velázquez is a Full Professor and the Department Chair of the undergraduate social work programme at the University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras Campus. She has held a PhD in Social Work since 1994 from Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.

xii

Notes on the Editors and Contributors

She teaches social policy and research method courses at undergraduate and graduate level. Her research interests, publications, and professional presentations include physical and mental health policy issues related to delivery and access to health care services; quality of life; drug policy reform; policy practice in social work; and ideologies and professional preferences of undergraduate social work students in the local and Latin American context. Jo-Pei Tan graduated from the University of Oxford in 2008 with a PhD in Evidence-Based Social Intervention. She teaches social policy, health and social care from an international perspective at Manchester Metropolitan University in the United Kingdom. Before joining the university, she worked at the University of Putra, Malaysia, and was awarded the Young Researcher Award 2010 for the Category of Social Sciences and Humanities. She has spoken about her research on care, intergenerational relations and social policies at the universities in Asia that include Kyoto University in Japan, Chulalongkorn University in Thailand, University of Putra Malaysia, The Asian Research Institute at National University Singapore and Institute of Family and Gender Studies in Vietnam. Pia Tham is a researcher at the University of Gävle, Sweden. She received her  PhD in Social Work from Stockholm University in 2008. Her research interests and publications concern the working conditions of social workers, social work education, and the transition from university studies to working in the profession. She is currently conducting a research project on how working conditions for social workers in child welfare have developed over the past decade, and how they could be improved. Katarina H. Thorén is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Social Work at Stockholm University, Sweden. She received her PhD from the School of Social Service Administration at the University of Chicago in 2008. The title of her dissertation is Activation Policy in Action: A Street-level study of Social Assistance in the Swedish Welfare State. Her main research interests include social policy and policy implementation; policy practice in social work; and comparative welfare state research with a focus on unemployment and activation policies in social work organisations. She is currently involved in research projects studying the organisation and practical social work with unaccompanied refugee minors.

xiii

Where academia and policy meet

Lei Wu obtained her PhD degree in Social Welfare at the University at Albany, State University of New York, US in 2010. She is Associate Professor and teaches social policy and research methods in the Department of Social Work, School of Sociology and Population Studies, Renmin University of China. Her research interests include unemployment and work, migration, and social work education.

xiv

Acknowledgements The idea for this book emerged from one of the findings of our previous book, Social Workers Affecting Social Policy: An International Perspective (Policy Press, 2014). In the case studies that described the engagement of social workers in policy practice in various countries, it emerged that academia was one of the more common routes by which social workers sought to affect social policy. We termed this ‘Academic Policy Practice’ and were curious as to how it worked. The Israel Science Foundation generously granted us funding to undertake a study of the engagement of Israeli social work academics in policy (Research Grant 324/14). That eventually led to the cross-national project that is the subject of this volume. This project was supported by a grant from the International Association of Schools of Social Work. As is undoubtedly true for any cross-national study, the project could not have taken place without the cooperation of country experts from across the globe. We are very grateful to Philip Mendes, Susan Baidawi, Minchao Jin, Xiao Li, Lei Wu, Jie Lei, Helena Blomberg, Christian Kroll, Andreas Herz, Stefan Köngeter, Francisco Branco, Gisela Negrón-Velázquez, Antoinette Lombard, María Asunción Martínez-Román, Miguel Ángel Mateo-Pérez, Katarina H. Thoren, Pia Tham, Hugh McLaughlin, Jo-Pei Tan, Richard Hoefer and Arati Maleku for their patience, skills and knowledge. They are the gifted social work scholars who undertook the country-level studies and authored the chapters of this book. We would also like to acknowledge the work of Dr Talia-Meital Schwartz-Tayri, who collaborated with us on the Israeli pilot study, and to Bracha Erlich, who worked hard on editing the chapters. Finally, as always we are in debt to the Policy Press staff, and particularly to Isobel Bainton, for their contribution from the planning stage of this book all the way through to its completion. As social work scholars who have always sought to combine research and teaching with policy engagement (though not always successfully!), we would like to thank our colleagues throughout the world who participated in this study. We hope that this book will not only help explain the academia–policy nexus, but actually encourage greater policy engagement among our peers in schools of social work across the globe. Idit Weiss-Gal and John Gal Rishon Lezion March, 2016

xv

ONE

Where academia and policy meet: an introduction John Gal and Idit Weiss-Gal

Michael Burawoy’s advocacy in 2004 of a ‘public sociology’ (Acker, 2005; Burawoy, 2005; Kalleberg, 2005; McLaughlin and Turcotte, 2007; Brym and Nakhaie, 2009) rekindled a long-running debate in academia on the role of intellectuals in addressing the social concerns of the societies of which they are a part (Rein, 1980; Jacoby, 1987; Brym and Myles, 1989; Kurzman and Owens, 2002). In the years since, scholars in diverse fields in the social sciences have grappled with the implications of this emphasis on their contribution to dealing with social issues (Clawson et al, 2007; Elliott and Williams, 2008; Jeffries, 2009; Smith, 2010; Hardy, 2013; Hanemaayerr and Schneider, 2014). While the heated debate on the role of intellectuals in diverse fields, such as the natural sciences and humanities, is perhaps understandable given the distance between the nature of societal problems and the apparent goals of study in those fields, such debate seems less explicable for the helping professions (Fondacaro and Weinberg, 2002; Braveman and Suarez-Balcazar, 2009; Grace and Willis, 2012). This is especially so for social work. As a domain of academic study that emerged from the need to train professionals and to create knowledge relevant to alleviating social problems and distress (Smith, 1965; Kendall, 2000; Leighlinger, 2000), social work is an academic field in which professionals’ engagement in society-oriented research and activities would appear to be obvious. Given social work’s clear commitment to social justice and social change and its focus on the needs of populations adversely affected by social problems (Sewpaul and Jones, 2004; Marsh, 2005; Hoefer, 2016), it may also be assumed that social work academics would be policy actors at the forefront of involvement in the social policy process. Moreover, given their ‘closeness’ to the field, social work academics can be expected to play an active role in the policy process, above and beyond academics’ traditional role of disseminating knowledge.

1

Where academia and policy meet

There is indeed some evidence of social work academics’ involvement in policy processes in various countries (Landry, Amara, and Lamari, 2001; Sherraden, Slosar and Sherraden, 2002; Kaufman, 2011; Strier, 2011; Weiss-Gal and Gal, 2013; Butler, 2015; though see Karger and Hernández, 2004; Howard, 2010; and Mackinnon, 2009 for a more critical appraisal). Yet a review of the literature reveals that there has been no systematic attempt to study the engagement of social work academics in the policy process. Consequently, significant empirical knowledge of their involvement is lacking, despite its potential contribution to social work scholarship and training, as well as to a better general understanding of the role of academics as policy actors. The goal of this volume is to address this lacuna by adopting a crossnational comparative perspective.

Academia and the policy process Institutions of higher education are potential policy actors, in that one of their avowed missions is to provide politically and socially relevant research to government agencies (Birkland, 2005). Indeed, the growing emphasis on the societal impact of colleges and universities reinforces this expectation (Macadam, 2013; Bastow, Dunleavy and Tinkler, 2014). Similarly, individual academics, alongside think tanks and research centres, are seen as policy actors seeking to influence the decision-making process (Bulmer, 1986; Ayalon and Avnimelech, 2007; Lingard, 2015). Nevertheless, the degree to which the transfer of knowledge relevant to policy formulation and involvement in this process actually occurs is unclear. This is due to doubts about the readiness of members of both the academic and the policy communities to engage in the policy process and due to the institutional constraints on such transfers (Jacobson, Butterill and Goering, 2004; Haynes et al, 2011; Newman, 2014). Scholarship on the engagement of academics in the policy process seeks to better understand the interaction between the academic and policy worlds. In her path-breaking work on the mental health field in the late 1970s, Carroll Weiss identified the characteristics of social science research that make it useful for decision-makers and the barriers that constrain the transfer of relevant knowledge from academia to policy-makers (Weiss, 1977, 1980). An influential, pioneering effort to address this interaction in a more structured way was made by Jack Knott and Aaron Wildavsky (1980), who created a hierarchy of stages of policy-makers’ use of research that ranges from the passive ‘reception’ of knowledge to its actual ‘impact’ in the form of tangible results of the transfer of the knowledge.

2

Where academia and policy meet: an introduction

Both anecdotal and systematic data have emerged over recent decades that offers insights into how far academics (primarily in the social and health sciences) seek to influence the policy process, how they bring their knowledge to policy-makers, and the complexities involved in this (Weiss and Bucuvalas, 1980; Bogenschneider and Corbett, 2010; Contandriopoulo et al, 2010). This scholarship often focuses on specific policy fields (Maton and Bishop-Josef, 2006; Kothari, MacLean, and Edwards, 2009; Smith, 2010; Crona and Parker, 2011) or on the academic members of policy networks (Huberman, 1990; Lewis, 2006; Smith, 2013). Several quantitative studies have provided a wider overview of the phenomenon. Réjean Landry and his colleagues (2001) found that nearly 50% of Canadian scholars in the social sciences reported that they usually or always transmit their research findings to practitioners, professionals and policy-makers. Across the Atlantic, Ross Bond and Lindsay Paterson (2005) discovered that 66% of academics in England and 71% in Scotland had taken part in at least one of the activities defined by the authors as civic engagement. In a wide-ranging Australian study of scholars in the social sciences, it emerged that despite institutional barriers, over half of the respondents reported that their research had been applied by nonacademic end-users (Cherney et al, 2012). The literature on research dissemination enables us to identify diverse direct and indirect routes through which academics seek to influence the policy process. Among these are the traditional routes associated with this process, such as undertaking policy-related research in an academic framework (Huberman, 1990) or in more policy-oriented think tanks (Weiss, 1992; Ahmad, 2008; Shields et al, 2015). Also prevalent is the dissemination of research findings through personal communication (Lavis et al, 2003, Bunn and Sworn, 2011), by way of policy networks that involve policy actors in specific issues or domains (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993, 1999; Lewis, 2006) or through participatory research involving policy-makers (Richardson, 2013). In particular, the evaluation of programmes (Walker, 2001; Vedung, 2010; Ward et al, 2011) has been central to the work of academics in their interaction with the policy process. Other routes of influence that have been identified include more proactive efforts by academics, such as use of the media (Bond and Paterson, 2005; Sommer and Maycroft, 2008; Orr, 2010) and testifying before committees that operate in the policy process (Chandler, 2009; Edwards, Bryant and Bent-Goodley, 2011; Gal and Weiss-Gal, 2011). They also include more formal and ongoing means, such as serving

3

Where academia and policy meet

as policy advisors and consultants, as heads or members of formal committees, or as members of taskforces, as well as holding decisionmaking positions (Banting, 1986; Donnison, 2000; McLennan, Osborne and Vaux, 2005). Finally, the social work literature shows that academics collaborate with advocacy organisations and service users as expert advisors and/or active participants in social action (Kaufman, 2004).

Social work academics as policy actors Social justice and social change are strongly embedded in the thinking of the social work profession (Hare, 2004; Marsh, 2005; Simpson and Connor, 2011; Reisch and Garvin, 2016). Historically, social workers have sought to influence policy as a means of fostering social change (see, for example, Combs-Orme, 1988). Influencing social policy is cited as an important professional task in social work codes of ethics (Weiss-Gal and Gal, 2013), in definitions of social work (Council on Social Work Education, 2010), and in the professional literature (eg Colby, 2008; Haynes and Mickelson, 2009; Ritter, 2013; Jansson, 2014). ’Policy practice’, the term used to describe this type of social work activity, refers to: activities undertaken by social workers as an integral part of their professional activity in diverse fields and types of practice that focus on the formulation and implementation of new policies, as well as existing policies and suggested changes in them. These activities seek to further policies on the organizational, local, national and international levels that are in accord with social work values (Gal and Weiss-Gal, 2013, pp 4-5). Policy practice is becoming an integral part of social work training and practice (Weiss-Gal, 2016). Indeed, a growing volume of research in various countries identifies social workers as policy actors (CoombsOrme, 1988; Ezell, 1994; Domanski, 1998; Gray et al, 2002; BentGoodley, 2003; Dudziak and Coates, 2004; Douglas, 2008; WeissGal, 2013; Vukovic and Babovic, 2014; Weiss-Gal and Gal, 2014; Gewirtz-Meydan et  al, in press). We can anticipate that, as key participants in this discourse and in the social work education system, social work academics will indeed play an active role in the policy process. Indeed, in contrast to other members of the social work

4

Where academia and policy meet: an introduction

community, the academic status, research, and knowledge of social work academics afford them relatively easy access to policy-makers, while encouraging policy-makers and the media to consult with them. Moreover, given the relative autonomy that characterises academia, social work academics enjoy greater freedom to engage in policy practice than many other social work professionals do. Yet the literature on the involvement of social work academics in policy arenas is very limited. Most of it consists of case studies of successful collaboration between social work academics and others, namely students, social work practitioners, advocacy organisations or service users. These case studies reveal that social work academics conduct and disseminate policy-relevant studies, which serve as bases for policy change activities and provide legislators with expert testimony that furthers policy agendas. They launch media campaigns in collaboration with advocacy and community groups and they organise coalitions to advocate for policy change (Sherraden et al, 2002; Kaufman, 2004, 2011; Chandler, 2009; Butler, 2015). Quantitative studies on the engagement of social work academics in the policy process are very rare. Nancy Mary (2001), who examined the political activity of social work faculty and field instructors, found that 27% of the participants had testified before a legislative committee and 40% before a community committee. Landry and colleagues (2001), who compared the transfer of knowledge to policy-makers and practitioners by different academic disciplines in Canada, found that social work academics contributed significantly more to applying knowledge to policy than academics in other social sciences did. However, these studies provide little information about the factors associated with academics’ policy involvement or on the diverse forms that their policy involvement takes. Moreover, neither study employed a cross-national research design, which can afford a more comprehensive perspective on the social work academia–policy nexus.

The Policy Practice Engagement Framework (PPE) The conceptual framework employed in this study is the Policy Practice Engagement (PPE) framework (Gal and Weiss-Gal, 2015). It is an effort to identify the diverse factors that influence social workers’ engagement in policy practice in different policy arenas and national settings by drawing on diverse theoretical sources to shed light on the factors. More specifically, it seeks to explain why social workers engage in policy practice and how they tend to intervene in the policy process. ‘Academic policy practice’, which refers to the involvement

5

Where academia and policy meet

of social work academics in policy, was identified by the authors of this conceptual framework as one of the routes through which social workers undertake policy practice. However, the links between the various components of this framework and the engagement of social work academics in policy have yet to be explored empirically. The framework encompasses three interrelated but distinct components: opportunity, facilitation and motivation. ‘Opportunity’ refers to the degree to which policy formulation institutions are accessible to social work academics seeking to influence the policy process. Drawing on the neo-institutional literature in political science and social policy research (March and Olsen, 1989; Lowndes and Roberts, 2013), the framework underscores that policy engagement depends on the institutional arrangements in various phases of the policy formulation process that determine formal and informal norms and rules. These norms and rules are crucial in that they influence the accessibility of this process to external policy actors, among them social workers and social work academics (Mosley, 2010; Schneider and Netting, 1999). As it depends on context-specific norms and rules, opportunity varies between nations and between different policy formulation arenas and it can obviously change over time. In this volume, we assume that the specific nature of the policy formulation process in each of the case studies will have an impact on the types of activities that social work academics engage in within the policy process; the impact that academics perceive that they have; and the differences that emerge between different types of social work faculty. The ‘facilitation’ component of the PPE framework refers to the degree to which the organisational context in which a professional is situated enables, or indeed encourages, policy practice. The assumption here is that organisational characteristics and culture will affect an individual’s involvement in the policy process in that they will reflect the degree to which policy engagement is an acceptable form of social work activity and, if so, the form that this will take and who will engage in it. The literature that seeks to study the contours of organisation culture and its impact is a useful relevant body of knowledge (Schein, 2006). The organisational context in which social work academics operate is that of an institution of higher education. As such, the current project examines various facets of three organisational levels that we assume will play a role in facilitating social work academics’ engagement in policy-related activities. These are university support for policy engagement, school administrative and peer support, and student support.

6

Where academia and policy meet: an introduction

The ‘motivation’ component focuses on how prepared individuals are to engage in policy practice. In other words, the assumption is that diverse personal resources, such as values, capabilities and competencies, perceptions and traits are linked to the motivation of individuals to engage in policy-related activities (Ezell, 1994). A useful starting point for studying this component is Sidney Verba and his colleagues’ study of the personal factors that can be associated with the civic voluntarism model (Verba, Scholzman and Brady, 1995). Here, motivation was examined by studying the impact of personal academic status, personal role perceptions and perceived policy involvement skills on the policy-related activities of social work academics. Thus, the study related to academic status as a source of motivation for policy engagement. We assumed that higher academic rank and tenure offer social work academics a greater sense of job security and expertise in their field and thus those with more seniority will be more motivated to intervene in the policy process. They will also be less hesitant to express their views on policies. Another set of motivational factors relate to individual variables, such as perceptions of the role of academia and academics in society and the possession of policy-related resources (motivation, knowledge, skills) (Kaufman, 2004; Bond and Paterson, 2005; Haynes et al, 2011). Burawoy’s (2005) work on public sociology offers a useful reference point for examining the association between social work academics’ role perceptions and their involvement in policy. Burawoy (2005) identifies four types of knowledge production in sociology: public knowledge for the general public; policy knowledge to serve the needs of policy-makers; professional knowledge that enriches instrumental debate in academia; and critical knowledge aimed at generating debate in the academic community (Bryme and Nakhaie, 2009). He notes that the specific type of knowledge that sociologists seek to create will influence the extent and nature of their involvement in society. Since social work, unlike sociology, is a vocational discipline with a strong emphasis on applied goals, the book also examines a fifth type of knowledge production: the development of social work practice. It is assumed that social work scholars seek to produce knowledge that enhances social workers’ interventions.

Exploring the policy role of social work academics Drawing on the PPE model and the literature on academics’ involvement in policy, this collaborative volume explores the engagement of social work academics in the social policy arena. The

7

Where academia and policy meet

book has two explicit aims: 1) to identify the degree and characteristics of social work academics’ policy engagement in different countries, and 2) to identify the motivational, facilitative and opportunity factors that are associated with their engagement. A quantitative cross-national comparison of twelve countries in five continents, using identical research tools, is employed to reach these aims. The book seeks to answer the following questions for each of the countries surveyed: 1. What are the level and characteristics of social work academics’ policy involvement? More specifically: (a)  What is the level of engagement of social work academics in policy processes? (b) In which types of activities do they engage most? (c) What are their levels of engagement in the different stages of the policy process? (d) How do they perceive their impact on policy-makers? 2. What are social work academics’ perceptions of the social role of academia, their own role as social work scholars and their personal policy-related resources? 3. What are the levels of support for engagement in policy in the social work academics’ own academic institutions? 4. What are the similarities and differences between the 12 national cohorts on the levels and forms of social work academics’ policy engagement, their role perceptions, their perceived impact on policy-makers, and the organisational support they receive? 5. What are the associations between motivational factors (academic status, role perceptions, the perceived social role of academia, perceived policy resources); facilitating factors (university support, school administration support and student support for policy engagement); opportunity factors (the structure and norms of the policy process); and social work academics’ level of engagement in policy?

Method Given the obvious impracticality of discussing the engagement of social work academics in policy across the globe in a single volume, we have adopted a structured, focused cross-national design that seeks to compare case studies (George and Bennett, 2005). All the countries included in this study have a solid infrastructure of social work, and social work training and research is undertaken in higher education institutions. While distinctive modes of social work practices and traditions can be found in various national settings, social work is also

8

Where academia and policy meet: an introduction

a global profession with a common core that has emerged through an ongoing transnational transfer of knowledge (Weiss, 2005). One of the components of this common core is, at the very least, a formal commitment to further social work’s social justice goals through engaging in social policy. The 12 country case studies described in the chapters of this book span five continents and have diverse political and welfare systems. The countries are Australia, China, Finland, Germany, Israel, Portugal, Puerto Rico, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. Obviously, as in any comparison of case studies, we do not claim that the social work academics in this group of countries necessarily represent social work academia throughout the world. Moreover, the political systems and economic and social structures of the countries differ and this will have an impact on the nature of political engagement and the issues that it addresses in diverse national contexts. Nevertheless, given that this is the first effort to undertake a cross-national study on the engagement of social work academics in policy, we believe that the insights from this diverse group of nations, all of which share a common professional ethos, will be of value in shedding light on the role of social work academics in policy. The country-level studies in this project were undertaken by leading social work scholars with an interest in policy practice in each of the 12 countries. They distributed the questionnaires during 2014 and 2015 (except Israel where they were distributed during 2013) to social work academics in their country through a web-based questionnaire. They then drew on their intimate knowledge of the cases to interpret the findings. The data collection process and the sizes of the samples differed across the nations due to differences in the size of social work academia and the accessibility of social work academics (for detailed descriptions of this process, see the country chapters and the concluding chapter). Instruments The study questionnaires were developed by the editors of this volume. First, items were formulated, in Hebrew, for each variable, based on previous literature and related questionnaires. The items were then validated by four Israeli social work academics, accordingly revised by the editors, and distributed to the Israeli sample. Good internal reliability was found for each of the scales. The questionnaire was then translated into English and given to the country experts. The country experts translated the questionnaires

9

Where academia and policy meet

into the language of their country; where necessary, they made minor adjustments in the phrasing; and they distributed the questionnaires to social work academics in their country. The questionnaires were distributed in English in Australia, South Africa, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States; in Spanish in Spain and Puerto Rico; and in the national languages in China, Finland, Germany, Israel and Portugal. A number of the country experts added additional countryspecific questions to the questionnaires distributed in their countries. The research instruments employed to measure each of the variables were as follows (see the Appendix for the full questionnaire): Level of engagement in policy activities was measured by a 20-item scale, which covered a range of activities that academics can undertake to influence social policy. The scale developed was based on previous research and case studies (eg Sherraden et al, 2002; Bond and Paterson, 2005). The opening question was: ‘During your career as a faculty member in social work, how often have you engaged in the following activities in order to influence social (welfare) policy?’. The following clarification accompanied the question: ‘Social (welfare) policy includes one or more of the following domains: social care (social welfare services), social security, income maintenance, rehabilitation, education, physical and mental health, housing and employment’. The respondents were asked to indicate their response on a four-point scale in which: 1=never, 2=once, 3=a few times, 4=frequently. Internal consistencies of the scale in the 12 samples were good, ranging between α=0.88 and α=0.93. Each respondent received an overall score that was calculated as the mean of his or her responses to all 20 items. The higher the scores, the more involved the social work academic was in the social policy formulation process. Levels of engagement in stages of the policy process was measured by a five-item scale. The opening question was: “During your career as a social work faculty member, to what degree did you (alone or with others), engage in: (1) placing social problems on the public agenda; (2) placing social (welfare) policy limitations on the public agenda; (3) suggesting policy alternatives in order to deal with a social problem; (4) formulating social (welfare) policy; and (5) evaluating policy.” A five-point Likert scale ranging from 1=never to 5=frequently was employed. Each respondent received five scores, one for each item. The higher the scores, the more the social work academic engaged in the queried policy stage. Perceived impact on policy-makers and advocacy organisations was measured by a five-item scale, adapted from existing scales (Knott and Wildavsky 1980; Landry et  al, 2001;

10

Where academia and policy meet: an introduction

Cherney et al, 2012). This scale explored the degree to which the respondents perceived that policy-makers and advocacy organisations used their research or recommendations. The participants were asked to indicate their response on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1=never to 5=very extensively. Respondents also had a ‘don’t know’ option. Each respondent received five scores, one for each item. The higher the score, the greater the respondent’s perceived impact on the policy process. Respondents also received two additional scores, one reflecting the mean scores of the three items relating to policymakers, and the second two items relating to advocacy organisations. The internal consistencies of the items relating to policy-makers were good to very good, ranging between 0.84 and 0.97. For advocacy organisations, the internal consistencies ranged between 0.81 and 0.97. The perceived social role of academia was measured by a threeitem scale that asked respondents to express how far they agreed with the claim that academia has a commitment to: (1) ‘assist society in solving its problems’; (2) ‘critique the social order’; and (3) ‘change power relations in society’. A Likert scale, ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree, was employed. The internal consistencies of the three-item scale were acceptable to good in all the national cohorts (ranging between α=0.71 and α=0.89). The score for each respondent was their mean response to the three items. The higher the score, the greater the respondent’s support for the social role of academia. The level of perceived personal role as a social work academic was measured by a 15-item scale that reflects Burawoy’s (2005) four types of academic role (public, policy, professional, critical) and a fifth role (developing social work practice) specific to social work academics. The opening statement was: “As a social work faculty member, my role is to…”. A Likert scale was used, ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. A principal components factor analysis undertaken on the Israeli sample yielded five factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, which jointly explained 76.3% of the variance. The first, ‘a policy role’, consisted of four items (eg “my role is to assist policy-makers deal with social problems”) (α=0.87). The second, ‘a critical role’, consisted of three items (eg “my role is to enhance academics’ understanding of the social factors influencing individual distress”) (α=0.87). The third, ‘a professional role’, consisted of three items (eg “my role is to enhance knowledge that contributes to scientific discussion”) (α=0.67). The fourth, ‘a public role’, consisted of two items (eg “my role is to influence the way that the general public thinks about how to deal with social problems”) (α=0.65).

11

Where academia and policy meet

The fifth, ‘a developing social work practice role’, consisted of three items (eg “my role is to develop knowledge that will contribute to social workers”) (α=0.85). In most of the other national cohorts, the internal consistencies of the five roles were acceptable to good; and only under 0.6 in a few cases. Overall, the internal consistencies for the policy role ranged between: α=0.81 and α=0.93; for the critical role between α=0.47 and α=0.88; for the professional role between α=0.32 and α=0.84; for the public role between α=0.65 and α=0.90, and for the developing social work practice role between α=0.48 and α=0.98. Five scores were calculated for each respondent, based on the mean responses on the items in each factor. The higher the score, the more the respondent believed that the stated role was incumbent on him or her as a social work academic. The level of perceived policy-related resources was measured by a five-item scale. The respondents were asked to assess the degree to which they had the knowledge, skills, motivation, commitment and self-efficacy to influence social policy on a Likert-type scale, ranging from 1=not at all to 5=to a large extent. The internal consistencies in each national sample were acceptable to very good (ranging between α=0.75- α=0.94). The score for each respondent was based on his/her mean response to the five items. The higher the score, the greater the respondent’s perceived resources to engage in policy-related activities. Perceived academic environment support for policy engagement was measured by a nine-item scale, which assessed the degree to which the respondents believed that they received support for policy engagement from their university administration, the administration and colleagues of their school or department of social work, and their social work students. A Likert-type scale, ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree, was employed. A principal components factor analysis of the Israeli sample yielded three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, which jointly explained 68.3% of the variance. The first factor, ‘university administration support’, consisted of three items (eg “The administration encourages faculty to engage in activities aimed at influencing social (welfare) policy”) (α=0.71). The second, ‘school/department of social work administration and colleagues’ support’, was made up of five items (eg “The Dean of my school encourages faculty to engage in activities aimed at influencing social (welfare) policy”) (α=0.84). The third, ‘student support’, consisted of one item: “Students expect faculty members to engage in activities aimed at influencing social (welfare) policy”. In the other 11 national cohorts, the internal consistencies of the support by the school of social work administration and colleagues was good

12

Where academia and policy meet: an introduction

(ranging between α=0.84 and α=0.90). The internal consistencies of the support by the university administration were acceptable in eight cohorts (ranging between α=0.64 and α=0.85) and weak in the other four (Puerto Rico, 0.28; Spain, 0.42; Sweden, 0.49; South Africa, 0.53). Three scores were calculated based on the mean response to the items in each of the factors. The higher the score, the greater the perceived support for policy involvement. To deal with the specific weak internal consistency of the ‘university administration support’ factor, in the comparative analyses in the final chapter one of the three items was removed. This led to a marked improvement in the internal consistency in all 12 cohorts, which then ranged between 0.61 and 0.89. The following 12 chapters present country-level case studies. In each chapter, an overview of the country’s welfare system, the social work profession, and social work education sets the stage for the analysis of the findings. Each chapter describes the methodology that was employed, presents the findings of the survey of social work academics in that country, and discusses the findings. The final chapter draws on the case studies and analyses the aggregated data to reflect on the social work academia– policy nexus that is the focus of this volume. References Acker, J. (2005) ‘Comments on Burawoy on public sociology’, Critical Sociology, 31(3): 327-32. Ahmad, M. (2008) ‘US think tanks and the politics of expertise: Role, value and impact’, The Political Quarterly, 79(4): 529-55. Ayalon, O. and Avnimelech, Y. (2007) ‘The role of an academic institution in setting environmental policy: The case of Israel’, Energy, 32: 927-34. Banting, K. (1986) The social policy process. In M. Bulmer (ed.), Social Science and Social Policy. London: Allen & Unwin, pp 41-60. Bastow, S., Dunleavy, P. and Tinkler, J. (2014) The Impact of the social Sciences: How Academics and their Research Make a Difference. London: Sage. Bent-Goodley, T.B. (2003) The role of African-American social workers in social policy. In T.B. Bent-Goodley (ed.), African American social workers and social policy. Binghampton, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc., pp 1-16. Birkland, T.A. (2005) An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making. New York: Sharpe. Bogenschneider, K. and Corbett, T.J. (2010) Evidence-based Policy Making: Insights from Policy Minded Researchers and Research-minded Policymakers. London: Routledge.

13

Where academia and policy meet

Bond, R. and Paterson, L. (2005) ‘Coming down from the ivory tower? Academics’ civic and economic engagement with the community,’ Oxford Review of Education, 31(3): 331-51. Braveman, B. and Suarez-Balcazar, Y. (2009) ‘Social justice and resource utilization in a community-based organization: A case illustration of the role of the occupational therapist,’ The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63(1): 13-23. Brym, R.J. and Myles, J. (1989) ‘Social science intellectuals and public issues in English Canada,’ University of Toronto Quarterly, 58(4): 442-51. Brym, R.J. and Nakhaie, M.R. (2009) ‘Professional, critical, policy and public academics in Canada’, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 34(3): 655-69. Bulmer, M. (1986) Social Science and Social Policy, London: Allen and Unwin. Bunn, F., and Sworn, K. (2011) ‘Strategies to promote the impact of systematic reviews on healthcare policy: a systematic review of the literature’, Evidence and Policy, 7(4): 403-28. Burawoy, M. (2005) ‘2004 American Sociological Association presidential address: For public sociology’, British Journal of Sociology, 56(2): 259-94. Butler, S.S. (2015) ‘Research supporting policy advocacy in an antiwelfare environment: The TANF Time Limit Law in Maine’, Journal of Community Practice, 23(3-4): 392-402. Chandler, S.K. (2009) ‘Working hard, living poor: Social work and the movement for livable wages,’ Journal of Community Practice, 17(12): 170-83. Cherney, A., Head, B., Boreham P., Povey J. and Ferguson, M. (2012) ‘Perspectives of academic social scientists on knowledge transfer and research collaborations: A cross-sectional survey of Australian academics’, Evidence and Policy, 8(4): 433-45. Clawson, D., Zussman, R., Misra, J., Gerstel, N., Stokes, R. and Anderton, D.L. (eds) (2007) Public Sociology. Berkeley: University of California. Colby, I.C. (2008) Social welfare policy as a form of social justice. In: Sowers, K.M., and Dulmus, C.N. (eds.). Comprehensive Handbook of Social Work and Social Welfare. Hoboken: Wiley, pp 113-28. Combs-Orme, T. (1988) ‘Infant mortality and social work: Legacy of success’, Social Service Review, 62: 83-102. Contandriopoulos, D. Lemire, M., Denis, J-L. and Tremblay, E. (2010) ‘Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: A narrative systematic review of the literature’, The Milbank Quarterly, 88(4): 444-83.

14

Where academia and policy meet: an introduction

Council on Social Work Education. (2010, March) Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards, http://www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=43974 Crona, B. and Parker, B. (2011) ‘Network determinants of knowledge utilization: preliminary lessons from a boundary organization’, Science Communication, 33(4): 448-71. Domanski, M.D. (1998) ‘Prototypes of social work political participation: An empirical participation’, Social Work, 43(2): 156-67. Donnison, D. (2000) ‘The academic contribution to social reform’, Social Policy and Administration, 34(1): 26-43. Douglas, L. (2008) Political Involvement of Social Workers. Unpublished MA thesis. Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada. Dudziak, S., and Coates, J. (2004) ‘Social worker participation in policy practice and political activity’, Canadian Review of Social Policy, 54: 79-96. Edwards, H.R., Bryant, D.U. and Bent-Goodley, T.B. (2011) ‘Participation and influence in Federal child welfare policymaking’, Journal of Public Child Welfare, 5: 145-66. Elliott, E. and Williams, G. (2008) ‘Developing public sociology through health impact assessment’, Sociology of Health & Illness, 30(7): 1101-1116. Ezell, M. (1994) ‘Advocacy practice of social workers’, Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 75(1): 36-46. Fondacaro, M.R. and Weinberg, D. (2002) ‘Concepts of social justice in community psychology: Toward a social ecological epistemology’, American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(4): 473-92. Gal, J., and Weiss-Gal, I. (2011) ‘Social policy formulation and the role of professionals: The involvement of social workers in parliamentary committees in Israel’, Health and Social Care in the Community, 19: 158-67. Gal, J. and Weiss-Gal, I. (2013) ‘Policy practice in social work: An introduction’. In: Gal. J. and Weiss-Gal, I. (eds) Social Workers Affecting Social Policy: An International Perspective. Bristol: Policy Press, pp 1-16. Gal, J. and Weiss-Gal, I. (2015) ‘The “why” and the “how” of policy practice: An eight country comparison’, British Journal of Social Work 45(4): 1083-110. George, A.L. and Bennett, A. (2005) Case Studies and the Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gewirtz-Meydan, A., Weiss-Gal, I. and Gal, J. (in press) ‘Social workers’ policy practice in non profit human service organizations in Israel.’ British Journal of Social Work. Grace, P.J. and Willis, D.G. (2012) ‘Nursing responsibilities and social justice: An analysis in support of disciplinary goals’, Nursing Outlook, 60: 198-207.

15

Where academia and policy meet

Gray, M., Collet van Rooyen, C., Rennie, G., and Gaha, J. (2002) ‘The political participation of social workers: A comparative study’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 11(2): 99-110. Hanemaayer, A. and Schneider, C.J. (eds.) (2014) The Public Sociology Debate. Vancouver: UBC Press. Hardy, M. (2013) ‘Public’ social work?’, Qualitative Social Work, 12(4): 540-45. Hare, I. (2004) ‘Defining social work for the 21st century. The International Federation of Social Workers’ revised definition of social work’, International Social Work, 47: 407-24. Haynes, A.S., Derrick, G.E., Chapman, S., Redman, S., Hall, W.D., Gillespie, J. and Sturk, H. (2011) ‘From “our world” to the “real world”: exploring the views and behaviour of policy-influential Australian public health researchers’, Social Science and Medicine, 72(7): 1047-55. Haynes, K. S., and Mickelson, J. S. (2009) Affecting Change: Social Workers in the Political Arena (7th edition). Boston: Pearson. Hoefer, R. (2016) Advocacy Practice for Social Justice (3rd edn), Chicago, Illinois: Lyceum Books. Howard, M.O. (2010) ‘Social workers as public intellectuals’, Social Work Research, 34: 131-3. Huberman, M. (1990) ‘Linkage between researchers and practitioners: A qualitative study’, American Educational Research Journal, 27(2): 363-91. Jacobson, N., Butterill, D. and Goering, P. (2004) ‘Organizational factors that influence university-based researchers’ engagement in knowledge transfer activities’, Science Communication, 25(3): 246-59. Jacoby, R. (1987) The Last Intellectuals. New York: Basic Books. Jansson, B.S. (2014) Becoming an Effective Policy Advocate: From Policy Practice to Social Justice (7th edn), Bewlmont: Brooks/Cole. Jeffries, V. (ed.) (2009) Handbook of Public Sociology. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Kalleberg, R. (2005) ‘What is ‘public sociology’? Why and how should it be made stronger?’, The British Journal of Sociology, 56(3): 387-93. Kaufman, R. (2004) ‘Successful university-community partnership to change public policy: Preconditions and processes’, Journal of Community Practice, 12(3-4): 163-80. Kaufman, R. (2011) ‘Serving the community: Teaching and researching community engagement for social justice at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev’, Reflections 17(4): 83-94. Karger, H.J and Hernández, M.T. (2004) ‘The decline of the public intellectual in social work’, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 31(3): 51-68.

16

Where academia and policy meet: an introduction

Kendall, K.A. (2000) Social Work Education: Its Origins in Europe. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education. Knott, J. and Wildavsky A. (1980) ‘If dissemination is the solution, what is the problem?’, Science Communication, 1(4): 537-78. Kothari, A., MacLean, L. and Edwards, N. (2009) ‘Increasing capacity for knowledge translation: Understanding how some researchers engage policy makers’, Evidence and Policy, 5(1): 33-51. Kurzman, C. and Owens, L. (2002) ‘The sociology of intellectuals’, Annual Review of Sociology, 28: 63-90. Landry, R., Amara, N. and Lamari, M. (2001) ‘Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada’, Research Policy, 30(2): 333-49. Lavis, J. N., Robertson, D., Woodside, J. M., McLeod, C. B. and Abelson, J. (2003) ‘How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers?’, The Milbank Quarterly, 81(2): 221-48. Leighlinger, L. (2000) Creating a New Profession: The Beginnings of Social Work Education in the United States. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education. Lewis, J.M. (2006) ‘Being around and knowing the players: Networks of influence in health policy’, Social Science & Medicine, 62: 2125-36. Lingard, B. (2015) ‘Think tanks, ‘policy experts’ and ‘ideas for’ education policy making in Australia’, Australian Education Research, DOI 10.1007/s13384-015-0193-0. Lowndes, V. and Roberts, M. (2013) Why Institutions Matter: The New Institutionalism in Political Science. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Macadam, M. (2013) ‘Impact evaluation in the policy landscape: Understanding the influence of social science’, Evidence and Policy, 9(4): 573-82. MacKinnon, S.T. (2009) ‘Social work intellectuals in the TwentyFirst Century: Critical social theory, critical social work and public engagement’, Social Work Education, 28: 512-27. March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1989) Rediscovering Institutions. New York: The Free Press. Marsh, J. (2005) ‘Social justice: Social work’s organizing value’, Social Work, 50: 293-4. Mary, N.L. (2001) ‘Political activism of social work educators’, Journal of Community Practice, 9(4): 1-20. Maton, K.I. and Bishop-Josef, S. J. (2006) ‘Psychological research, practice, and social policy: Potential pathways of influence’, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37(2): 140-5.

17

Where academia and policy meet

McLennan, G., Osborne T. and Vaux J. (2005) ‘Universities in the condition of publicity: how LSE engages with the wider world’, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 3(3): 241-60. McLaughlin, N. and Turcotte, K. (2007) ‘The trouble with Burawoy: An analytic, synthetic alternative’, Sociology, 41(5): 813-28. Mosley, J.E. (2010) ‘Organizational resources and environmental incentives: Understanding the policy advocacy involvement of human service nonprofits’, Social Service Review, 84(1): 57-76. Newman, J. (2014) ‘Revisiting the “two communities” metaphor of research utilization’, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 27(7): 614-27. Nutley, S. and Webb, J. (2000) Evidence and the policy process. In, H.T.O Davis, S. Nutley and P.C. Smith (eds.), What Works? Evidencebased Policy and Practice in Public Services. Bristol: Policy Press, pp 30-41. Orr, G. (2008) ‘Academics and media in Australia’, Australian Universities Review, 52(1): 23-31. Rein, M. (1980) ‘Methodology for the study of the interplay between social science and social policy’, International Social Science Journal, 32(2): 361-8. Reisch, M. and Garvin, C.D. (2016) Social Work and Social Justice: Concepts, Challenges and Strategies. New York: Oxford University Press. Richardson, L. (2013) ‘Putting the research boot on the policy-makers foot: Can participatory research change the relationship between policy-makers and evaluation’, Social Policy & Administration, 47(4): 483-500. Ritter, A.J. (2013) Social Work Policy Practice: Changing our Community, Nation, and the World. Boston: Pearson. Sabatier P.A. and Jenkins-Smith, H.C. (1993) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Sabatier, P.A. and Jenkins-Smith, H.C. (1999) ‘The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment’. In Sabatier, P.A. (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, Co: Westview, pp 117-68. Schein, E.H. (2006) Organizational Culture and Leadership (3rd edn). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schneider, R.L., and Netting, F.L. (1999) ‘Influencing social policy in a time of devolution: Upholding social work’s great tradition’, Social Work, 44(4): 349-57. Sewpaul, V. and Jones, D. (2004) ‘Global standards for social work education and training’, Social Work Education: The International Journal, 23(5): 493-513. Sherraden, M.S., Slosar, B. and Sherraden, M. (2002) ‘Innovation in social policy: Collaborative policy advocacy’, Social Work, 47(3): 209-21.

18

Where academia and policy meet: an introduction

Shields, J., Preston, V., Richmond, T., Sorano, Y., Gasse-Gates, E., Douglas, D., Campey, J. and Johnston, L. (2015) ‘Knowledge mobilization/transfer and immigration policy: Forging space for NGOs – the case of CERIS – The Ontario Metropolis Centre’, International Migration & Integration, 16: 265-78. Simpson, G. and Connor S. (2011) Social Policy for Social Welfare Professionals. Bristol: Policy Press. Smith, K. (2010) ‘Research, policy and funding – academic treadmills and the squeeze on intellectual spaces’, British Journal of Sociology, 61(1): 176-95. Smith, K.E. (2013) ‘Understanding the influence of evidence in public health policy: What can we learn from the ‘Tobacco Wars?’ Social Policy and Administration, 47(4): 382-98. Smith, M.J. (1965) Professional Education for Social Work in Britain. NY: Council of Social Work Education. Sommer, B. and Maycroft, J.R. (2008) ‘Influencing public policy: An analysis of published op-eds by academics’, Politics and Policy, 36(4): 586-613. Strier, R. (2011) ‘The construction of university-community partnership: entangled perspectives’, Higher Education, 32: 81-97. Vedung, E. (2010) ‘Four waves of evaluation diffusion’, Evaluation, 16(3): 263-77. Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L. and Brady, H.E. (1995) Voice and Equality in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vukovic, D. and Babovic, M. (2014) ‘Social interests, policy networks, and legislative outcomes’, East European Politics and Societies, 28(1): 5-24. Walker, R. (2001) ‘Great expectations: Can social science evaluate New Labour’s policies?’ Evaluation, 7(3): 305-30. Ward, K.J., Maher E.J., Marcynyszyn M., Lyscha A., Ellis M.L.K. and Pecora, P.J. (2011) ‘Context matters: Real-world and utilizationfocused evaluation strategies to support change and improvement in child welfare’, Child Welfare, 90(2): 29-47. Weiss, C.H. (ed.) (1977) Using Social Research in Public Policy Making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Weiss, C.H. and Bucuvalas, M. (1980) Social Science Research and Decision-making, New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Weiss, C.H. (ed.) (1992) Organizations for Policy Analysis. Newbury Park: Sage. Weiss, I. (2005) ‘Is there a global common core to social work? A cross-national comparative study of BSW graduate students’, Social Work, 50, 101-10.

19

Where academia and policy meet

Weiss-Gal, I. (2013) ‘Policy practice in practice: The inputs of social workers in legislative committees’, Social Work, 58, 304-13. Weiss-Gal, I. (in press) ‘Policy practice education: Literature review’, International Journal of Social Welfare. Weiss-Gal, I., and Gal, J. (2013) An international perspective on policy practice. In: Gal. J., and Weiss-Gal, I. (eds.). Social Workers Affecting Social policy: An International Perspective. Bristol: Policy Press, pp 183-210. Weiss-Gal, I. and Gal, J. (2014) ‘Social workers as policy actors’, Journal of Social Policy, 43(1): 19-36.

20

TWO

Social work academia and policy in Australia1 Philip Mendes and Susan Baidawi

The Australian welfare state Australia possesses one of the most selective income support systems in the Western industrialised world. Financial assistance is provided on a flat rate basis, funded from general taxation revenue rather than via contributions from workers and employers. In contrast to many European welfare states, Australia did not introduce social insurance schemes whereby those who experience unemployment or sickness are protected by income replacement packages. Rather, its welfare payments are mostly means tested, targeted to the poor, and low in monetary value (Whiteford, 2010). Early historians depicted Australia as a ‘working man’s paradise’ in which disparities of wealth were far less prevalent than in the old world. Motivated by the philosophical concept of a ‘fair go’, Australian governments introduced legislation in the early 20th century both to protect the rights and conditions of workers, and to provide direct payments to older and people with disabilities (Mendes, 2008). This unique welfare state model was called a ‘wage earners welfare state’ because it concerned itself primarily with protecting wage levels (at least for white male breadwinners) rather than providing supplementary welfare benefits. The Australian model contrasted with the residual model of welfare because Australia had a minimum living wage, and with the institutional model of welfare because full inclusion in the system depended on one’s status as a wage earner rather than as a citizen (Castles, 1985, pp 102-3). The Australian welfare state has been described as a residual or liberal welfare state that is typified by low levels of welfare spending, and minimum interference with the free market (Esping-Andersen, 1990). Assistance is mainly targeted via means-tested payments to poor and disadvantaged people, rather than being provided universally to all citizens. A more recent analysis using a range of welfare state

21

Where academia and policy meet

characteristics from 1973-2007 constructs Australia as ‘one of the least generous welfare states in the OECD [Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development]’ (Starke et al, 2014, pp 234). Its public social expenditure as a percentage of GDP in 2012 was 18.3%, leaving Australian ranked 25th out of 34 in the OECD, and below the OECD average of 21.4 (OECD, 2014). However, an alternative point of view contests the assumed link between greater social expenditure and income redistribution. That perspective argues that the Australian model provides the most effective system for reducing income inequality of any OECD country. This is because its careful targeting of benefits to needy groups (that is, the spending on income-tested cash benefits is more than four times the OECD average) maximises the reduction in poverty attained by any given expenditure. Australia’s ratio of benefits received by the poorest groups compared with those received by the richest groups was 12.4% in 2005 while the OECD average was just 2.1%. Consequently, Australia is particularly successful in redistributing income to the poorest 20% of the population (Whiteford, 2010).

Major characteristics of the welfare state The Australian welfare state consists of a range of cash payments comprising pensions, allowances and associated support services including family support, financial counselling, and assistance to mental health service users. Income security payments totalled AUD$110 billion in 2012-13 (the equivalent of €79 billion) including AUD$75 billion for pensions and allowances and AUD$25 billion for family benefits. Just over 5  million Australians received some form of payment. The Age Pension (36.3 billion) and the Disability Support Pension (15 billion) comprise the largest outlays given they involve support to the largest numbers of people. In contrast, the Newstart Allowance for the unemployed costs 7.5 billion. The other 12 pensions and allowances combined only account for less than 20% of the AUD$75  billion figure. Support services cost AUD$529 million (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2013, pp 85-86; McClure, 2014, pp 25, 138-140).

The neo-liberal transformation The Liberal–National Coalition government elected in late 2013 aggressively pursued neo-liberal agendas. The first Coalition Budget imposed significant cuts to payments and/or stricter eligibility criteria

22

Social work academia and policy in Australia

for the young unemployed, younger people with a disability and sole parents. In particular, the government introduced a new rule excluding young people aged less than 30 years from receiving unemployment payments for six months of every year. The Coalition also defunded a number of housing and disability advocacy groups including Homelessness Australia, the Community Housing Federation of Australia and Inclusion Australia. Overall, the budget seems to have had a disproportionately negative impact on people with low incomes, and an estimated one billion dollars has been cut from community services (Australian Council of Social Service, 2014). The Coalition also established a review of welfare payments. The final report of the review released in February 2015 recommended increased incentives to promote greater workforce participation. Work was assumed to provide major health, social and economic benefits for both individual people and the wider community. There was little reference to addressing the financial needs of long-term income security recipients (McClure, 2015). The current direction of the Australian welfare state seems to mirror dominant international trends, particularly those in the Englishspeaking ‘liberal welfare states’ (Standing, 2014). With the exception of the National Disability Insurance Scheme introduced in 2012, which is embedded (at least in principle) in a social rights philosophy, Australian welfare policies are characterised by the following patterns. It has paternalistic top-down systems (exemplified by income management) that focus on individualistic (often involving moralistic judgements) rather than structural explanations for disadvantage. Welfare payments are increasingly conditional, using a range of sanctions to coerce the unemployed into low wage jobs. Finally there is an emphasis on discretionary (often religious-based) charitable rather than rights-based state support for those who fall through the margins (Murphy et al, 2011; Marston et al, 2014).

The Australian social work profession The Australian social work profession first emerged in the late 1920s and early 1930s as a by-product of the expansion of state welfare services. Hospital social work was initially predominant followed by the employment of some non-medical social workers in non-government agencies. The professional association – the Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) – was established on a national basis in 1946 (Lawrence, 1965). Social work numbers grew rapidly in the late 1960s and early 1970s in line with increasing government involvement in

23

Where academia and policy meet

welfare service delivery. Membership of the AASW jumped from 726 in 1965 to 1,714 in 1974 (Lawrence, 1976). Early Australian social work was strongly influenced by the psychoanalytic tradition emanating from the United Kingdom and the United States. There was a particular emphasis on individualising remedial practice reflecting Mary Richmond’s casework approach at the expense of alternative methods such as social and community development associated with Jane Addams’ settlement house work (Morley et al, 2014; Pawar and Anscombe, 2014). Some critical views emerged in local social work education in the late 1950s and early 1960s identifying structural causes of social problems, and the use of sociological techniques in research. However, these ideas were quickly suppressed by the popular Bulletin magazine’s McCarthyist attack on alleged communist influence in the Melbourne University Social Studies Department. The attack also discouraged social work involvement in broader social reform activities (Mendes, 2009). Australian social workers were later influenced in part by the radical (often Marxist) critiques of social work that emerged in the mid-1970s. However, it took until the 1980s for a growing feminist consciousness to develop among Australian women social workers concerning their own career opportunities, and broader patriarchal influences on social welfare policies and social work practice. This consciousness led to a national caucus of the Australian Association for Social Work and Welfare Education forming, called Women in Welfare Education, to address issues of specific concern to women (Weeks, 2000). Australian authors appear to have made a significant contribution to the history and development of critical social work theory and practice. However, the specific contribution of critical social work approaches to Australian social work practice is less evident, and it appears that most Australian social workers favour conventional rather than critical practice models (Mendes, 2009). Social work is not a numerically significant profession in Australia. Over 1,800 social workers graduate every year from the 31 universitybased schools of social work either via the Bachelor of Social Work, which involves four years of full-time study, or the newer Master of Social Work qualifying programmes which require five years of study (Healy and Lonne, 2010). However, there were only 17,000 Australians working in specific social work positions in 2011, although a significant minority of the 35,000 Australians employed in welfare, recreation and community arts or counsellor positions may have social work training. They make up only a small proportion of the more

24

Social work academia and policy in Australia

than 750,000 Australians who work in the community services sector (AIHW, 2013, pp 365). Social workers are employed in virtually all fields of welfare practice, but only two organisations continue to use social workers exclusively to provide frontline welfare services: public hospitals and the Department of Social Services – the Commonwealth agency that provides all income security payments (Fitzgibbon, 2000). Nevertheless, most social workers are employed either by Commonwealth, state or territory or local government services, or by government-funded nongovernmental organisations. They work mostly with disadvantaged groups of people in areas such as child welfare, family violence, health and mental health, physical and intellectual disability, care for older people, substance abuse, refugee resettlement, Indigenous affairs, and housing/homelessness. In addition, somewhere between five and ten per cent of social workers work in private practice. This number has increased in recent years as a result of the government (Medicare) rebate available to social workers providing specialised short-term counselling to people with complex mental health conditions. Most social workers are employed in generic positions such as child protection and disability support, and are not specifically identified as social workers. It is often difficult to segregate the practice activities of these social workers from other workers employed under similar job titles. Social work in Australia is not a registered profession with legal professional boundaries, unlike in most English-speaking countries where registration is mandatory, and unlike most other allied health professions in Australia. All social work graduates are eligible to join the AASW, but many decide not to join because membership is not required for professional practice. Consequently, the AASW has only about 8,000 members, which it estimates to be about 30% of eligible social workers. This relatively small membership appears to have negative implications for the social work profession’s profile and influence (Lonne and Duke, 2009; Cintio, 2010; Lonne, 2010; Healy, 2015). The AASW has formed a National Registration Committee to pursue registration under the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. The AASW argues that registration and protection of the title of social workers is needed to raise their status, and to protect the interests, physical safety and well-being of service users (AASW, 2014). However, it is debatable whether registration would actually improve the practice and accountability of social workers, and it may only serve to dilute the profession’s commitment to social justice values, and further separate social workers from the many other human service

25

Where academia and policy meet

practitioners who perform the same or similar tasks (Chenoweth and McAuliffe, 2008; Morley et al, 2014). In the interim, the AASW has introduced a Continuing Professional Education policy, which enables members who choose to do so to get professional accreditation.

Professional social work discourse on social policy All the official statements of the AASW endorse involving social workers in policy practice, and define policy advocacy as a core professional requirement. The AASW Practice Standards define social policy as one of the eight core areas of social work practice (AASW, 2013). The Practice Standards also inform the AASW Education and Accreditation Standards, which require graduates to ‘analyse, challenge and develop social policies’, and to demonstrate ‘knowledge about social policy development, and implementation and evaluation of social policy including policy theoretical frameworks’ (AASW, 2012a, pp 8, 11). Similarly, the AASW Code of Ethics affirms one of the key aims of social work as to promote human rights and social justice through social and systemic change and advocacy (AASW, 2010). The AASW Continuing Professional Education Policy also recommends involving social workers in policy practice to promote social justice and human rights (AASW, 2012b). In addition, the AASW National Social Policy Committee (NSPC) formed in 1998 and revamped in 2006, has been active in promoting an activist social policy agenda in the social work profession (Cheron-Sauer, 2008; Baglow, 2015). The question is whether the practice matches the rhetoric. A study of bi-annual conference addresses (the ‘Norma Parker addresses’) by national AASW Presidents from 1969 to 2012 suggests a qualitative difference between two chronological periods. The pre-1985 ‘addresses’ presented a strong commitment to the collective involvement of social workers and their professional Association in broader policy activism. Albeit the AASW’s policy influence began to decline after 1975 due to the increasing backlash against the welfare state, and the Association’s smaller membership and resources following the split with the newly formed Australian Social Welfare Union. The post-1985 addresses suggest that campaigns for professional recognition left little time and resources for social activism. Most of these addresses devoted substantial space to developing professional identity and standards (Mendes, 2015a). There is no doubt that some Australian social workers are involved in social and political activism both within the formal structures of political parties or professional associations, and as everyday practice

26

Social work academia and policy in Australia

in local agencies, neighbourhoods and communities. For example, the Australian Council of Heads of Schools of Social Work ran a successful campaign assisted by a number of rank-and-file social work practitioners and students to contest Australian government policies on the rights of refugees seeking asylum (Briskman and Goddard, 2007). The AASW too led an effective campaign including rankand-file social workers to restore the government Medicare rebate for accredited mental health social workers under the Better Access to Mental Health care programme (Mendes et al, 2014). Following the 1997 national inquiry into the forced separation of Aboriginal children – known as the Stolen Generations – from their families, the AASW has also been far more involved in supporting the rights of Indigenous Australians. In particular, the Association has developed a Reconciliation Action Plan, incorporated Indigenous culture into key social work practice and education documents, and included Indigenous social workers in Association activities (Mendes, 2015b). Yet many (perhaps most) social workers do not participate in policy activities, and appear to believe that policy activism is incompatible with professional practice (Mendes, 2008). Little is known about the involvement of social work academics in policy activism. Some Australian social work academics such as Jan Fook, Jim Ife, Margaret Alston and Bob Pease are prominent in international debates on social work theory, skills, ethics and practice (Pawar and Anscombe, 2014), but far fewer seem to be leaders in social policy analysis. Those social work academics who do specialise in social policy mostly seem to target their research and publications at audiences far broader than social work students or practitioners (for example, Marston et al, 2014; McClelland and Smyth, 2014). Australian academia is in a state of flux. Teaching is increasingly delivered by academics employed only in casual or short-term contract positions. All academics are under pressure to teach larger numbers of students (often international fee-payers from non-English speaking backgrounds that need extra help), and simultaneously attain large competitive research grants. These factors may inhibit their available time and resources to undertake policy activities and analysis (Hil, 2012).

Method Participants The ‘Where academia and policy meet’ survey was approved by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee on 27 June

27

Where academia and policy meet

2014. The survey was distributed online through SurveyMonkey to Australian social work academics (estimated at 150-200) between August 2014 and February 2015 via the Australian Council of Heads of Schools of Social Work, and also via specific emailed approaches to heads of social work departments and individual social work academics. A total of 47 participants responded to the survey, though three respondents did not complete the entire survey and one was not employed in an academic role leaving 43 complete and usable responses. Note that the number of responses for some items is greater than 43 as participants’ responses were included where available, including for those who did not complete the entire survey. The method of online recruitment through the schools of social work did not allow for the calculation of a response rate. The final sample was mostly comprised of female respondents (76.7%). The mean age of respondents was 53 years (range=36-67 years), though only 38 participants gave information relating to age. The sample consisted of lecturers (42.9%), senior lecturers (23.8%), associate professors (4.8%) and professors (28.6%). The vast majority of respondents had tenure (90.5%) and on average they had been employed at their current tertiary institution for 9.8 years [range=3-25 years].

Findings Level of policy engagement The internal consistency of the 20-item scale measuring the level of engagement in policy activities (Table 2.1) was very good (α=0.90). The most frequently reported activities included serving in a policyrelated committee and participating in a protest activity. Conversely, writing blogs, being a speaker at a demonstration and participating in court appeals were less commonly reported. The mean of policy engagement was 2.30 on a scale from one to four (SD=0.60). On face value few differences could be seen in the level of policy engagement reported by males (M=2.25, SD=0.52) and females (M=2.30, SD=0.63); however, respondents with tenure reported higher levels of policy engagement than those without tenure (M=2.36, SD=0.58 vs M=1.63, SD=0.39 out of 4, p