Centering power, positionality, and emotional labor in a Master of Social Work research course: Perspectives from a student and instructor

Abstract

This paper presents a case study of a student and instructor's experience in a foundational research course in a Master of Social Work (MSW) program at a major university. As part of this course, students are asked to design and implement an original, practiceinformed research project. One student had a particularly complex, affective response to her research project. In response to the student's experience in the course, the instructor reconceptualized the major course assignment, drawing from the feminist concept of emotional labor, so that it would be responsive and relevant to the student's learning. This instance of educational individualization allowed the student to take inventory of and critically reflect on her enhanced awareness of self, positionality, and power structures personally, professionally, and as a researcher, through an autoethnographic narrative and critical analysis. A central finding of this case study is that attention to the emotional labor of research opens up space for ways of knowing and learning beyond positivist, inflexible, and narrowly imagined competency-based paradigms. Moreover, this case study demonstrates the possibilities of qualitative research in accessing and exploring the affective research experience. Finally, this paper argues that emotional labor is a critical aspect of learning, teaching, and practicing research that ought to be fully considered and addressed across all approaches to inquiry, particularly those concerned with social justice. Recommendations for conceptualizing and teaching social work

Pedagogical Methods of Teaching Social Justice in Social Work: A Scoping Review

“…Of the course-based teachings, six studies noted the course as "required," three as "elective," two as "voluntary-based" and the rest did not identify. Types of courses reported in 24 studies course-based teaching include two Human Behaviors and Social Environment courses (HBSE: Jennings et al, 2015;Kossak et al, 2001), two research courses (Hudson & Richardson, 2016;Nicotera & Walls, 2010), one direct practice course (Rosen, McCall, & Goodkind, 2017), two policy courses (Revens, Reynolds, Suclupe, Rifkin, & Pierce, 2018;Weiss-Gal & Peled, 2007), and the rest were special topic courses (e.g., human sexuality, oppression, policy advocacy and community engagement, etc.).…”

Teaching Mental Health and Well-Being Online in a Crisis: Fostering Love and Self-compassion in Clinical Social Work Education

“…We used the ethic of love and self-compassion to draw attention to the emotional labor and power dynamics (Hudson and Richardson 2016 ) and to reflect upon our experience of navigating the rapid shift to online SWE during the crisis. In our narratives, we conceptualized love as a relationship-based practice promoting dialogue, respecting one another's lived experiences, acknowledging the interconnectedness of people, endorsing nonviolence, and accepting the feelings of disruption caused by COVID-19.…”

Poverty metaphors: An autoethnography in three parts

“…Qualitative Social Work (QSW) reflects an increasing popularity in authoethnography drawing upon a diversity of methodologies including feminist (Charles and Johns, 2023; Johnson, 2020), analytic (Gupta, 2017a; Hernandez-Carranza et al, 2021), evocative (Oswald et al, 2022), and critical approaches (Schmid, 2022). These employ a range of methods including poetry (Gallardo et al, 2009; Karki, 2016; Oehlers, 2017; Szto et al, 2005), diarising (Gant, 2017), letter writing (Oehlers, 2017), vignettes (Charles and Johns, 2023; Newcomb et al, 2022; Schmid, 2022), case studies (Gupta, 2017a; Hudson and Richardson, 2016), photovoice (Kattari and Beltrán, 2022), photography (Szto et al, 2005), collaborative (Malorni et al, 2022; Newcomb et al, 2022; Oswald et al, 2022; Sloane and Haas, 2020), and duoethnography (Wagaman and Sanchez, 2017). A narrative approach is commonly used within autoethnography (Comerford, 2019; Gant, 2017; Phillips, 2007, 2019; Schmid, 2010), although the discussion of method within articles varies.…”