Disrupting hegemony in social work doctoral education and research: Using autoethnography to uncover possibilities for radical transformation

Abstract

Social work has enhanced its profile in the United States by adopting a particular dialect of scientific inquiry wherein positivism and evidence-based practice are considered gold standards of social work research and practice. This ideological shift permeates doctoral education and research training, as well as social work more broadly. Little attention, however, is paid to the pedagogical approaches used to train doctoral students into a “science of social work,” and we know even less about critical methodologies in doctoral education. This collaborative autoethnography weaves together the personal narratives of three doctoral students and one early career faculty member navigating an academic context within a large public university in the United States. We employ a participatory and intersectional approach to analyze narrative data in terms of how our identities interact with the structures relevant to where we study and work. Three themes emerged from our collaborative analysis: becoming disillusioned by disciplinary shortcoming; confronting dissonance with radical solidarity; and making change on the inside using perspectives from the outside. We argue throughout that critical reflexivity is a tool to document, resist, and transform hegemonic discourse that narrowly defines what it means to embody social work research, practice, and education.

Unsettling reflexivity and critical race pedagogy in social work education: narratives from social work students

“…This approach focuses on investigating research questions through the creation of narratives shaped by the writer's personal experiences within a culture influenced by social contexts and institutions (Patton, 2014). Social work scholars have used autoethnography to explore ideologies influencing students' research training and lived experiences of placement (Gant et al, 2019;Oswald et al, 2020).…”

“…Both of these paradigms of inquiry can be implemented to enhance social work practitioners' reflexivity in clinical settings, amplify social work students' voices and engage in critical dialogue across positionality, and make research participatory and accessible to broader audiences (Gant et al, 2019;Jensen-Hart & Williams, 2010;Witkin, 2014). Social work scholars have used collaborative autoethnography methodology to examine hegemony in social work doctoral education and explore possibilities for radical changes in the training of social work scholars (Oswald et al, 2020) in addition to raising issues of preparedness for field placements, and ethics (Gant et al, 2019;Lapadat, 2017).…”

Autoethnography and social work: Strange bedfellows or complementary partners?

“…Autoethnography is not being taught in social work programs so students are unlikely to be exposed to it. Although U.S. doctoral programs emphasize research training, they overwhelmingly favor traditional quantitative approaches (Oswald et al, 2022;Drisko et al, 2015). Oswald et al (2022, p. 114) note, 'Forms of scholarly inquiry more aligned with justice-oriented practice, such as community-based methods, are very often diminished by the neoliberal academic regime that values profits over people, order over chaos, and standardization over complexity.'…”

“…This resonated strongly with autoethnographic narratives that evoke empathy and compassion, especially toward people who are 'not like us.' Not surprisingly, social workers who have engaged in autoethnography have been drawn to this critical orientation (e.g., Hernandez-Carranza, Carranza, and Grigg, 2021;Krumer-Nevo, 2009;Gupta, 2017;Oswald, Bussey, and Thompson, 2022). In my opinion, adding this approach as a legitimate and significant expression of social work research is in keeping with the professed aims of the profession and would be 'future forming' (Gergen, 2015), rather than status quo or incremental change oriented, 'shift[ing] our priorities from investments in establishing truths and solidifying ideal practices, to efforts that actively mold desired futures' (Gergen, 2016, p. 3).…”

Power effects, normalising advice and evolving knowledge of doctoral writing

“…Waves of research have emerged to reveal doctoral writing is far greater than mere 'text work'. It is simultaneously a social practice, where students develop their scholarly identity and position themselves in research and academic communities (Kamler & Thomson, 2008;Oswald et al, 2022;Tapia & Stewart, 2022). Guidelines for doctoral writing, feedback from supervisors and other forms of advice plays a pivotal role in informing the textual and social practice work of doctoral writing.…”