Social Work Education & Child Welfare

My theoretical frameworks generally for teaching and research are primarily Critical, Feminist, and Indigenous. I see the profession of social work, social work education, and the child welfare system as being very interconnected. These theoretical lenses offer appropriate analysis because of the political, economic, and cultural assumptions that influence each of these areas.

Critical theories can be used to analyze the power dynamics in relationships (social worker/service user and educator/students) as well as whole systems such as the mandated nature of child welfare.

See: Healy, 2015; Fook, 2007; Dumbrill & Green, 2007.

Feminist theories can be used to analyze the political nature of child welfare, the intersectionality of multiple social characteristics of those within the child welfare system, and challenging the idea of one size fits all. The same analysis applies to education.

See: Anderson, 2000; Domenelli, 2002; Milliken, 2017; hooks, 1994.

As a settler person, learning about Indigenous ways of knowing helps to recognize the colonial roots that continue to privilege Eurocentric knowledges and practices in all of these areas and provides Indigenous ways of moving forward that are culturally responsive and are truly in the spirit of reconciliation.

See: Carriere & Strega, 2015; Sinclair, 2004; Kovach et al., 2013; Baskin & Cornacchia, 2021.

Each of these lenses offer their own analysis, but what they have in common:

• They help confront oppressive practices that shape social work, social work education, and child welfare.

• They offer the possibility for transformation and change.

• They require a Call to ACTION – moving beyond understanding (not just thinking different, but also acting different) and being able to image a new way forward.

A purpose of this research was to explore the possibilities for transforming child welfare practice through the platform of education. The findings provide guidance for social work education programs to respond to challenges in child welfare in more meaningful and active ways.

The methodology reflected a qualitative research approach based on constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006). Using purposeful sampling, participants were recruited from three categories: child welfare social workers, educators, and key informants. A semi-structured interview was used to gather data from 28 participants. Analysis using grounded theory methods was an iterative process using three main types of coding: initial, focused, and theoretical (Mills, Birks & Hoare, 2014).

In a qualitative approach, data gathering happens through collaborative interactions (Marlow, 2011). In a grounded theory method, participants are selected because of their experience related to the theory being developed. To address the research questions, I used purposeful sampling to recruit participants from three categories: child welfare social workers, educators, and key informants. As frontline protection workers, social workers have unique insight regarding how social work education prepared them and the role of transformative education for social change in child welfare. Social work educators teaching child welfare courses could explain their process for teaching students including their course content and teaching methods. Key informants including leaders in the community who are involved in child welfare could speak to the preparation of social workers in the child welfare field and what is needed moving forward.

Child Welfare Workers n = 7 (25%) from Manitoba.

Educators n = 8 (29%) from Manitoba (3) Saskatchewan (3), and Alberta (2).

Key Informants n = 13 (46%) from Manitoba (7), Saskatchewan (3), Alberta (2), and Ontario (1).

Between the seven child welfare workers and four of the key informants, all four Manitoba Authorities were represented in the sample with participant experiences from both rural and urban practice. Some participants had experiences working with multiple Authorities. Many of the educators and key informants had also worked at some point directly in the child welfare system. Most participants were in Manitoba (14). In the educator group, there were three from Manitoba, three from Saskatchewan and two from Alberta. In the key informant group, there were seven from Manitoba, three from Saskatchewan, three from Alberta, and one from Ontario. Many of the participants experiences fit aspects from more than one of the selection criteria groups, for example most participants had social work degrees and could reflect on their learning experiences as social work students, and many of the educators and key informants worked in various capacities as frontline workers within the child welfare field previously. This offered rich data “to give a full picture of the topic” (Charmaz, 2017, p. 33). Participants could speak to many dimensions of the impact of social work education and working within the child welfare system.