IASSW FUNDED PROJECT: FINAL REPORT

Where Knowledge, Social Work and Social Policy
Meet:
A Cross-National Perspective on the Involvementof Social Work Academics in Social Policy

Project Coordinator:
John Gal
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Contributors:
Idit Weiss Gal , Tel Aviv University; Francisco Branco,
Universidade Católica Portuguesa; Gisela NegronVelazquez, University of Puerto Rico; Hugh McLaughlin
and Jo-Pei Tan, Manchester Metropolitan University
8/6/2015

1

IASSW FUNDED PROJECT: FINAL REPORT
Where Knowledge, Social Work and Social Policy Meet:
A Cross-National Perspective on the Involvement of Social Work Academics
in Social Policy

Executive Summary
The goal of the project was to explore the interface between social work
academia and social policy in diverse societies by studying the involvement ofsocial work academics in the policy-formulation process in four countries –Israel, Portugal, Puerto Rico and the United Kingdom. Given social work's
commitment to social justice and policy practice, it was assumed that academia
is a crucial route for the profession to further these values. The first study of its
kind, the findings of this cross-national effort revealed that social work
academics do indeed engage in policy-related activities though the level ofengagement is only moderate. While differences between the country cohorts
emerged, it was clear that social work academics in all the four nations engage
most in more active, public sphere routes of influence within the policy arenaand in activities aimed at affecting policies in conjunction with traditional social
work partners, such as service users and other social workers. The findings also
underscored the sense among social work academics that academia has a role in
influencing society and that they have a personal role in influencing the social
work profession and the social policies and social welfare institutions in theirsocieties. The level of social work educators' engagement in policy practice is2

clearly dependent upon various factors but it is most clearly associated with anacademic's sense of efficacy and a conviction that he or she has the competencies
necessary to engage in policy-related activities. Given the potential contributionof social work academics to the policy formulation process and their position as
educators and role models, it is imperative that social work academics have thetools and support needed to increase their policy involvement.

3

Introduction
This is the final report on the IASSW funded project " Where knowledge, social
work and social policy meet: A cross-national perspective on the involvement ofsocial work academics in social policy". The goal of the project was to explore
the interface between social work academia and social policy in diverse societies.
The project was co-ordinated by Prof. John Gal of the Paul Baerwald School ofSocial Work and Social Welfare at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem andundertaken between August 2013 and May 2015.
The participants included leading social work scholars from four different
countries - Prof. Idit Weiss-Gal from the Shapell School of Social Work at Tel Aviv
University; Prof. Francisco Branco from the Universidade Católica Portuguesa in
Lisbon; Dr. Gisela Negron-Velazquez from the Department of Social Work at the
University of Puerto Rico; and Prof. Hugh McLaughlin and Dr. Jo-Pei Tan from
Manchester Metropolitan University.1
In order to achieve its basic goal, the project focused on the role of members of
the faculties of schools of social work in social policy formulation in four
countries across the globe. The involvement of social workers in this type ofactivity has been termed “policy practice”. This refers to activities carried out bysocial workers as an integral part of their professional work aimed at influencing
the formation and adoption of new policies or the modification or preservationof existing ones, whether at the organizational, local, national or international
levels (Gal and Weiss-Gal 2013). Though there is some evidence that social

1

Prof. McLaughlin and Dr. Tan graciously agreed to replace one of the original members, Prof. Elaine
Sharland, who was unable to continue in the project.

4

work academics (SWAs) in different countries do indeed seek an active role in
the policy process, there has been no systematic attempt to study this form ofpractice. Consequently, significant empirical knowledge of this phenomenon islacking, despite its potential contribution to scholarship and training withinsocial work.
As such, this project sought to clarify the role of social worker academics in thesocial policy formulation process in the various countries and the factors
associated with this. Based on this analysis, the project endeavored to identify
the implications of a cross-national comparison of engagement of social work
academics in policy practice for research and practice.
Theoretical Foundations
The role of academics in addressing social challenges has captured the attentionof thinkers virtually since the advent of academia. This societal role has been thesubject of much interest (Kurzman and Owens 2002) and, no less important, offierce debate (Bond and Paterson 2005; Burawoy 2005; Brym and Nakhaie2009). Of late, the growing expectation by governments for an identifiable
impact of universities on society has led to renewed interest into thisrelationship (Macadam 2013).
This study sought to shed light on the academia-policy nexus in the social policy
arena. Unlike much of the existing research on the place of academics in society,which often focuses on the receiver side of this relationship (decision-makers) or
the policy results of academics' involvement in this arena (Crona and Parker
2011; Richardson 2013; Smith 2013; Buckley et al. 2014), here activities
undertaken by academics take center stage. More specifically, the aim was to5

understand whether, and how, social work academics (SWAs) attempt to affectthe social policy formulation process and what are the factors associated with
this.
Due to social work’s commitment to social change and its avowed focus onaddressing the needs of populations adversely affected by social problems or byinadequate policies (Adams et al. 2009; IFSW, 2014), the underlying assumption
was that SWAs would seek to play an active role in the social policy process.
While there is some evidence that SWAs in different countries do engage inpolicy processes (Sherraden et al. 2002; Kaufman 2004; Chandler 2009; Strier2011), attempts to study systematically this engagement and the factors
associated with them are rare (Landry et al. 2001; Mary 2001).
Academics as Policy Actors
Policy making is a multiple-actor process that incorporates both formal andinformal actors (Howlett 2007). In recent decades, the governance discourse has
noted that policy deliberations have moved beyond the “core executive” thattraditionally dominated decision-making to include additional levels ofgovernment and an array of actors (Richards and Smith 2002; Kooiman 2003).
Public institutions of higher learning are perceived as policy actors in that one of
their missions is to provide politically and socially relevant knowledge togovernment agencies (Birkland 2005). Similarly, individual academics, research
institutions and think tanks have all been identified as policy actors seeking to
influence the policy decision-making process (Bulmer 1986). As noted above, theemphasis upon academic impact on society and the recent focus on evidencebased policy in diverse fields, among them social work (Gambrill 2006) and6social policy (Nutley and Webb 2000; Head 2008), provided major – thoughcontested (Nevo and Slonim-Nevo 2011; Newman, 2011) – impetus to interest in
the role of academics in policy formulation processes.
Scholarship concerning academics' engagement in the policy process seeks to
explore the interaction between the academic and policy worlds. In a pioneering
effort, Knott and Wildavsky (1980) created a hierarchy of stages of utilization ofresearch by policymakers. Since then, both anecdotal and more systematic dataoffered an insight into the degree to which academics seek to influence the policy
process, the ways through which this occurs, and the complexities involved in it(Weiss and Bucuvalas 1980; Maton and Bishop-Josef 2006; Kothari et al. 2009;
Bogenschneider and Corbett 2010; Contandriopoulos et al. 2010; Smith 2010 (.
Only a limited number of quantitative studies have focused on the provider sideof this phenomenon. Landry et al. (2001) found that nearly 50% of Canadianscholars in the social sciences reported that they often transmit their researchfindings to practitioners, professionals and policy makers. A mixed methods
study of the civic and economic attitudes and engagement of academics in
Scotland and England (Bond and Paterson 2005) revealed that the vast majorityof academics thought it important that higher education institutions provide
advice to policy makers. A majority of the respondents were involved in at least
one of the different routes examined. Interviews with academics also identified
varied forms of civic engagement, among them policy-change activities. A more
recent study of Australian social science academics revealed that over half of the
respondents reported that their research led to applications by nonacademic
end-users (Cherney et al. 2012 (.

7

An additional perspective on the academic-policy interface identified forms thatinterventions by academics into the policy process take. In most cases, these
focused on knowledge dissemination, which traditionally includes policy-related
research (Vedung 2010; Ward et al. 2011), the preparation of policy papers(Huberman 1990; Ahmad 2008), and the dissemination of research findings
through personal communication (Lavis et al., 2003). Additional forms of policy
engagement were policy consultations (to governmental bodies, think thanks or
third sector organizations), leadership or membership in formal committees ortaskforces, and even decision-making positions (Bond and Paterson 2005;
Donnison 2000; McLennan et al. 2005). Finally, they also included moreproactive efforts - the use of the media (Sommer and Maycroft 2008; Orr 2010),
testifying before policy committees (Chandler 2009), and collaboration withadvocacy organizations and service users as advisors or participants in social
action (Kaufman 2004; Strier 2011).
SWAs as Policy Actors
Influencing social policy is regarded as an important professional task within thesocial work profession. This core commitment is reflected in national social work
codes of ethics (BASW 2012; Weiss-Gal 2013), in definitions of social work
(CSWE 2010; IFSW, 2014), and in the social work literature (Dominelli 2004;
Marston and MacDonald 2012; Ritter 2013).
Policy practice (Jansson 2014) is a conspicuous component of social work
education in the US (Byers 2014). It is also an emerging topic in social work
education in other countries such as Israel (Weiss-Gal 2013), Australia(Zubrzycki and McArthur 2004) and the UK (Gregory and Holloway 2005). A
8

growing volume of research identifies social workers as policy actors in different
countries (Mendes 2013; Hoefer 2013; Gal and Weiss-Gal, 2013; Vukovic andBabovic 2014), and there are vigorous calls from social work academics to social
workers to expand and strengthen their involvement in policy processes(MacKinnon 2009; Goldberg 2012).
As is the case for scholars within other professional schools in higher education,
SWAs have a dual role. They seek to balance the creation of knowledge and its
dissemination in an academic setting with their commitment to a profession andits field. This generally encompasses an emphasis on the applied formulation ofknowledge and its dissemination, training, and frequent interaction withprofessionals and clients. In social work, this also entails (in principle, at least) a
professional commitment to impact society through social policy interventions
and an emphasis on collaboration with clients, communities and their advocates.
However, knowledge on SWAs’ involvement in policy processes and the factors
associated with this is limited. Most of it emerged from case studies that focus oncollaboration between SWAs, students, practitioners, advocacy organizations orservice-users in order to influence social policies (Sherraden et al. 2002;
Kaufman 2004; Chandler 2009; Strier 2011; Patterson et al. 2014). These
indicated that SWAs initiated policy changes and, with their partners, engaged indiverse policy activities. Among them were documenting social problems,organizing the community, placing social problem on the agenda throughconferences, demonstrations, the media and direct contacts with policy makers.
One quantitative study on the political activity of SWAs and field instructors
concentrated on a narrow spectrum of primarily political/electoral forms of9participation. Among others, it found that 76% of the respondents had
participated in demonstrations, 27% had testified before a legislative committee
and 40% had done so before a community committee (Mary 2001). In a crossdisciplinary study, Landry et al. (2001) underscored that academics in social
work in Canada contribute significantly more to the application of knowledge topolicy than academics in other social sciences. However, these studies did not
focus specifically on SWAs' engagement in the social policy process and offer
little on the forms that this takes and the factors associated with this.
The study presented here sought to assess the levels of SWAs’ engagement in awide variety of policy-related activities in different countries. These ranged fromtraditional knowledge dissemination activities, advisory roles and media
appearances, and through to social action. In addition, in order to shed more
light on their engagement, the study also assessed the SWAs’ levels of
involvement in distinctive stages of the policy process. While the policy stages
model is primarily a heuristic tool (Jann and Wegrich 2007), it can be a usefulway to structure the interface between academics and the policy process and tobetter understand the junctures in the policy process at which SWAs were most
likely to participate. Finally, the study examined the extent to which SWAs
perceived they have an impact on policy processes. By doing so, it sought toundertake a comprehensive examination of the involvement of a sector ofacademics in social policy formulation.
Factors Influencing Academic Involvement in Policy
The literature identifies institutional and individual factors likely to influence thelevels of involvement of academics in the policy process. Institutional factors
10include the organizational structure in universities (Jacobson et al. 2004;
Cherney et al. 2012), the norms and incentives that dominate academia andlevels of institutional encouragement (or discouragement) to engage in thecommunity (Bond and Peterson 2005; Walt 2005). Jacobson et al. (2004)
identified promotion guidelines, funding allocations, research structures, and thelack of a knowledge transfer orientation as obstacles for academics seeking toengage in policy-related activities. Based on these claims, this study examined
the association between levels of organizational support (from the university
administration and the school of social work) for policy involvement and thelevel of involvement in policy among SWAs.
Individual factors, identified in the literature, include role perceptions (regarding
the role of academia and academics in society or the community), personal
resources with regard to policy involvement (time, knowledge on policy issues
and competencies) and status (academic rank) (Kaufman 2004; Bond andPaterson 2005; Haynes et al. 2011). Finally, researchers claimed that academics'
personal status within the university arena (e.g., position, tenure) will play a rolein their policy involvement (Haynes et al. 2011). As such, both competences andacademic statue are examined in the current study.
In order to examine the association between SWAs' role perceptions and theirinvolvement in policy, Burawoy’s (2005) path-breaking work on public sociology
was employed. This distinguished between four types of knowledge production
within sociology – public, policy, professional and critical – and was recently
applied to social work (Hardy 2013). Public sociologists engage primarily in
producing reflexive knowledge for the general public. Policy sociologists produce

11instrumental knowledge intended to serve the needs of specific clients.
Professional knowledge enriches instrumental debate in academia, while criticalknowledge generates a reflexive debate within the academic community. As
social work, unlike sociology, is a vocational and professional academic field witha strong emphasis on enriching professional practice, a fifth type of knowledge
production was incorporated in this study – the development of social work
practice (DSWP). In other words, scholars will seek to produce knowledge thatenhances and furthers social workers` interventions. The underlying assumption
was that an academic's perception of the academia-society nexus is linked tolevels of policy engagement. Thus, the way SWAs perceive the societal role ofacademia and their academic roles will determine their level of involvement inpolicy processes. More specifically, a greater identification with public and policy
roles will be linked to higher involvement in policy processes.
The ProjectDue to the paucity of knowledge concerning the levels of involvement of SWAs ina wide range of policy activities and the factors that associated with this, theproject had two specific aims. These were to better understand: 1) the levels of
involvement of SWAs in policy and their perceived impact on the social policy
process; and 2) the institutional and individual factors associated with this.
Based on this analysis, the study sought to identify the implications of a crossnational comparison of engagement of social work academics in policy practicefor research and practice.

12

Method and Research Tools
The project researchers surveyed social work faculty in each of their countries –Israel, Portugal, Puerto Rico and the United Kingdom. Details pertaining to thespecific research populations in each of the countries and the surveys will bepresented in each of the country sections below.
All the researchers employed identical research tools, developed and validated
by the Israeli participant and the coordinator. In the absence of existingquestionnaires tapping the study variables, questionnaires were developed
specifically for the study in two stages. Initially items were formulated for eachvariable based on previous literature and related questionnaires. The contents
were then validated by four retired social work academics in Israel and wererevised.
Level of involvement in policy activities was measured by a 20-item scale, which
covered a range of potential activities that academics can undertake in order toinfluence social policy based on previous research and case studies (e.g.
Sherraden et al. 2002; Bond and Paterson 2005). The question was: "During yourcareer as a SWA, how often have you engaged in the following activities in order
to influence social policy?". This question was accompanied with the following
clarification: "Social policy covers policy in one or more of the following areas:
welfare, social security, personal social services, rehabilitation, education, healthand mental health, housing, employment, immigration and food security". The
respondents were asked to indicate their response on a four-point scale that
included: 1 = never, 2 = once, 3 = a few times, 4 = frequently. Internalconsistency of the scale was good (α=0.90). Each respondent received an overall
13

score that was calculated as the means of responses to all the 20 items. The
higher the scores, the more the SWA was involved in the social policy
formulation process.
Level of involvement in stages of the policy process was measured by a 5-item
scale. The question was: "During your career as a SWA, to what degree have you
engaged, alone or with collaborators, in: 1. Placing a social problem on theagenda; 2. Placing a policy limitation on the agenda; 3. Formulating policy
alternatives; 4. Planning policy; 5. Evaluating policy. A five-point Likert scaleranging from 1=never to 5= very extensively was employed. Each respondent
received five scores, one for each item. The higher the scores, the more the SWA
engaged in the stage.
Perceived impact on policy makers and policy advocacy organizations wasmeasured by a six-item scale that was adapted from existing scales (Knott andWildavsky 1980; Landry et al. 2001; Cherny et al. 2012). It explored the degree
to which the respondents perceived that policy makers and advocacy
organizations utilized their research or recommendations. The participants wereasked to indicate their response on a five-point Likert scale ranging from
1=never to 5= very extensively. Each respondent received six scores, one foreach item. The higher the score, the greater the respondent`s perceived impact
on the policy process.
The perceived social role of academia was measured by a three-item scale which
asked respondents to express their degree of agreement with the claim that
academia has a responsibility to: 1. "assist society to solve its problems"; 2.
"critique the existing social order"; 3. "change power relations in society". A
14

Likert scale, ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree, wasemployed. The internal consistency was good (α=0.80). The score for each
respondent was based on the mean response to the three items. The higher thescore, the greater the respondent’s support for the social role of academia.
The level of perceived personal role as a SWA was measured by a fifteen-item
scale that relates to Burawoy`s (2005) four types of academic roles: public,
policy, professional, critical, and a fifth type of role specific to SWAs. The
statement was: "As a faculty member in social work, my role is…". A Likert scale,ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree, was employed. A
principal components factor analysis yielded five factors with eigenvalues
greater than 1.0, which jointly explained 76.32% of the variance. The first, "apolicy role" consisted of four items (e.g. "my role is to assist policy makers todeal with social problems") (α=0.87). The second, "a critical role" consisted ofthree items (e.g. "my role is to enhance the understanding of the social causes of
personal deprivation among faculty members") (α=0.87). The third, "aprofessional role", consisted of three items (e.g. "my role is to develop knowledge
that will contribute to scientific debate ") (α=0.67). The fourth "a public role"consisted of two items (e.g. "my role is to influence the way in which social
problems are understood by the general public") (α=0.65), and the last, “a social
work practice role”, consisted of three items (e.g. “my role is to develop
knowledge that will contribute to social workers") (α=0.85). Five scores were
calculated based on the mean response on the items in each factor. The higher
the score, the more the respondent agreed with the role.

15

The level of perceived policy involvement competencies was measured by a fiveitem scale. The respondents were requested to assess the degree to which they
had the knowledge, skills, motivation, commitment, and self-efficacy to influencesocial policy on a Likert-type scale, ranging from 1= not at all to 5= to a large
extent. The internal consistency was high: α=0.90. The score for each respondent
was based on the mean response to the five items. The higher the score, thegreater the respondent`s perceived competencies to engage in policy-related
activities.
Perceived support for policy involvement by the academic environment wasmeasured by a nine-item scale, which assessed the degree to which the academic
perceived support for policy involvement by the university administration andthe administration, colleagues and students at the school of social work. A
Likert-type scale, ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree, wasemployed. A principal components factor analysis yielded three factors witheigenvalues greater than 1.0, which jointly explained 68.3% of the variance. The
first, “university administration support" consisted of three items (e.g. " theadministration encourages faculty involvement in activities intended to influencesocial policy") (α=0.71). The second, “school of social work administration andcolleagues` support” consisted of five items (e.g."The Dean of my school
encourages involvement of faculty in activities aimed at influencing social
policy") (α=0.84). The third, “student support" consisted of one item: "Thestudents in my school expect faculty to seek to influence social policy" (α=0.85).
Three scores were calculated based on the mean response on the items in each of
the factors. The higher the score, the greater the perceived support for policy
involvement.
16

The following sections of the report describe the findings in each of the countries
studied.
IsraelIn Israel social work is a well-established profession that has been fully
integrated into academia for almost six decades and enjoys, in cross-national
comparative terms, high professional status (Weiss-Gal 2004). Moreover,training for policy involvement has become more prominent in Israeli schools ofsocial work over the last decade (Weiss-Gal 2013). Finally, Israel is a welfare
state that has been influenced significantly by neo-liberal policies and has
undergone major periods of retrenchment in recent decades. Its poverty andinequality levels are higher than most other welfare states (Gal in press). These
have led to growing public attention to social issues and, in the summer of 2011,
to mass protests over the spiraling cost of living and cuts in social services(Rosenhek and Shalev 2014).
The research population consisted of all 252 faculty members of the ten schoolsof social work in Israel (excluding adjunct lecturers and field instructors). After
receiving authorization from the Tel Aviv University ethics committee, the study
questionnaires were e-mailed to all these faculty members using Qualtrics, which
protects the participants’ anonymity. Institutional websites served as a primarysource for the e-mail addresses of the scholars. All the participants signed
consent forms prior to their participation. Three rounds of distribution were
undertaken between August and October 2013. At the end of this process, 143
SWAs consented to participate in the study and completed the questionnaires (aresponse rate of 57).
17

Seventy five percent of them were women and their mean age was 52.5
(SD=9.60). Ninety percent of the respondents had Ph.Ds, over half were tenured(56%) and 68% were full-time faculty members. The rank of 41% of the
respondents was lecturer, 24% were senior lecturers, and 31% were associate or
full professors (In Israel there are four academic ranks – lecturer, generally
untenured, senior lecturer, generally tenured, associate professor, tenured, andfull professor, tenured). Most of the respondents (70%) had a social work
degree, and 63% practiced social work before becoming faculty members. Of
those without social work degrees, the largest group (16%) was graduates ofpsychology or of behavioural sciences.
Results
Levels of involvement in each of the 20 policy-related activities are presented intable 1. The overall mean level of involvement of Israeli SWAs in the policy
process was 2.01 (.62).
Table 1: Levels of policy involvement in Israel: Means, SDs and Distribution(N=143)Form of Policy Engagement

M (SD)

Never

Once/Few Frequently

2.75

20%

56%

24%

20%

61%

20%

(Abbreviated )Participated in protest activity(1.04)
Interviewed in the press

2.65(1.00)

18

Served in a policy-related

2.54

committee(1.20)

Advised an advocacy

2.43

organization(1.14)

Assisted in organizing service-

2.22

users

(1.05)

Worked with students

2.21

31%

41%

28%

32%

48%

20%

34%

54%

13%

32%

59%

9%

39%

53%

9%

44%

40%

16%

44%

43%

13%

37%

53%

10%

44%

45%

11%

48%

44%

8%

(1.00)
Participated in a policy-related
activity by social workers

2.18(1.05)

Advised policy makers

2.16(1.16)

Advised a policy-related

2.15

committee(1.13)

Formulated a position paper

2.11(1.02)

Sent publications to policy

2.10

makers(1.09)

Published an article in the

1.92

press

(1.02)

19

Testified in a legislative

1.92

committee(1.04)

Participated in a coalition

1.91

49%

42%

9%

52%

37%

11%

59%

33%

8%

68%

24%

8%

70%

24%

6%

78%

20%

3%

78%

20%

2%

88%

8%

4%

(1.09)
Analyzed policy on behalf ofpolicymakers or an advocacy

1.80(1.05)

organization
Chaired a policy-related

1.64

committee(1.01)

Organized a protest activity

1.57(0.95)

Was a speaker at a

1.37

demonstration(0.77)

Participated in an appeal to the

1.37

courts(0.75)

Wrote a blog in a social

1.26

network(0.74)

As can be seen, over half of the SWAs engaged at least once in 13 of the 20
activities examined. The most widespread activities that SWAs undertook in
20

order to influence social policy were participating in protests, press interviews,
serving in a policy-related committee and advising an advocacy organization.
Activities, which sought to affect policy along with students, advocacy
organizations, service users and practitioners were also prevalent.
Advising policy makers or policy committees, formulating a position paper, andsending publications to policy makers were less common. Nevertheless, most
SWAs reported having engaged in these types of activity once or more. By
contrast, writing a blog, participating in an appeal to the courts and speaking at ademonstration were much less widespread.
Levels of involvement in the policy stages are presented in table 2.
Table 2: Levels of involvement of SWAs in Israel in policy stages: Means,
SDs and distribution (N = 143)
Extensively/ Veryextensively

The stage:

M (SD)

Never

Placing a problem on the agenda

3.07 (1.27)

13%

49%

Placing a policy limitation on the agenda

2.65 (1.29)

24%

28%

Formulating policy alternatives

2.50 (1.36)

33%

24%

Planning policy

2.08 (1.28)

46%

17.5%

Evaluating policy

2.17 (1.27)

44%

20%

21

The table shows that placing a policy problem on the agenda was the mostcommon form of involvement with nearly a half of all the respondents sayingthat they engaged in this extensively or very extensively. By contrast, planningand evaluating policies was much less common. Over 40% of the Israeli SWAs
said that they had never engaged in these policy stages.
Table 3 shows the levels of perceived policy impact.
Table 3: Perceived impact of SWAs in Israel: Means, SDs and distribution(N=143)Extensively/Very
Extensively

The item:

M (SD)

Never

Policy makers:
Read publications

2.65 (0.14) 33%

10%

Cited publications

2.60 (0.16) 45%

12%

Drew upon recommendations

2.68 (0.15) 36%

18%

Cited publications

2.99 (0.16) 35%

19%

Drew upon recommendations

3.03 (0.15) 29%

17%

Advocacy organizations:22

The table indicates that between 10-20 percent of the SWAs believed that policy
makers extensively or very extensively read or cited their publications, drew
upon their recommendations or actually adopted them. Between a third andnearly a half of the SWAs said that policymakers had never done so. The
perceptions regarding impact upon advocacy organizations indicated slightly
higher perceived impact .
The means and standard deviations for the predictor variables for policy
involvement and the Pearson correlations with the level of involvement in policy
are presented in table 4.
Table 4: The explanatory variables in the Israeli case: Means, SDs andPierson Correlations with Academic Policy Practice (APP) (N=143)
The variable:

M (SD)

Involvementin APP

Perceived academic environment support:
Students

3.76 (1.08)

0.04

School of social work

3.39 (0.89)-0.01

Academic institution

3.15 (0.92)

0.13

4. 09 (0.78)

0.19*

DSWP

4.65 (0.63)

0.15

Policy4.37 (0.67)

0.40***

Perceived social role of academia
Perceived personal role:23

Professional

4.25 (0.66)

0.30***

Public4.23 (0.73)

0.29***

Critical

3.97 (0.91)

0.20**

3.41(1.02)

0.65***

Perceived policy practice competencies*p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

Table 4 shows that most of the predictors (perceived role of academia, four outof five of the perceived personal roles, and perceived competencies) were
statistically significantly correlated with level of engagement in policy activities.
In contrast, no significant correlations were found between the three facets ofperceived organizational support and levels of policy involvement.
The means scores in table 4 also show that SWAs regarded their students as thestrongest source of support for policy involvement, followed by the school
administration, with support by university administration the lowest. In a oneway ANOVA with repeated measures a significant difference emerged(F(2,284)=21.59,p<0.001, η² =0.13). Pair comparison tests yielded significant
differences between all three organizational facets.
With regard to perceived roles as academics, the findings showed a significant
difference between the five roles (F(4,568)=29.25,p<0.001, η² =0.17). Pair
comparison tests yielded significant differences between `DSWP` and the otherroles, between `Policy` and all the other roles except `Professional`, and between‘Critical’ and all the other roles. SWAs identified most with the role of `DSWP`
and were least supportive of the critical role.

24In order to examine the total and unique contribution of the predictor variables
to the explained variance in level of policy involvement, a four-step hierarchicalregression was performed (table 5). Tenure and academic rank were entered in
the first step. The perceived role of academia was entered in the second step. In
the third step, four of the five types of academic roles - public, policy,
professional and critical - were entered (since DSWP was not significantly
correlated with policy involvement, it was not included in this analysis). The
perceived competencies variable was entered in the fourth step.
Table 5: Regression coefficients (B, β) of the explained variance of SWAs`
Academic Policy Practice (APP) in Israel
Step
1

2

3

B

SEB

Β

Academic position

0.25

0.07

0.33***

Tenure

-0.05

0.11

-0.04

Academic position

0.28

0.06

0.37***

Tenure

-0.05

0.10

-0.04

Social role of academia

0.21

0.06

0.26***

Academic position

0.25

0.06

0.33***

Tenure

-0.01

0.10

-0.01

Social role of academia

0.07

0.07

0.09

Public

0.11

0.08

0.13

Professional

0.12

0.09

0.13

25

R²

R²

0.12***.12***

0.18***.06***

4

Policy

0.23

0.10

0.25*

Critical

-0.05

0.07

-0.07

Academic position

0.19

0.05

0.24**

Tenure

-0.02

0.08

-0.01

Social role of academia

0.02

0.06

0.03

Public

0.10

0.07

0.12

Professional

0.11

0.07

0.11

Policy

0.06

0.08

0.07

Critical

-0.07

0.06

-0.11

Competencies

0.34

0.04

0.56***

0.30***

0.12***

0.53***

0.23****p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

As can be seen, the predictor variables explained a total of 53% of variance in thelevel of policy involvement. Tenure and academic rank contributed 12% to the
explained variance and were statistically significant. SWAs with tenure andhigher academic ranks engaged more in policy activities. The perceived role ofacademia added another 6% in the second step. The greater the respondents’support for the social role of academia, the greater their involvement in policy
activities. In the third step, the four roles added another 12% to the explained
variance but only the policy role made a significant contribution. The more the
SWAs identified with the policy role, the greater their involvement in policy
activities. Perceived competencies contributed another 23% to the explained26

variance. The greater the SWAs` perceived policy-related competencies, thegreater their involvement in policy.
In the fourth step, the β coefficients of the variables decreased when theperceived competences variable was entered. This suggests that competencies
may mediate the relations between the perceived social role of academia andidentification with an academic's policy role and level of policy involvement.
Indeed Sobel tests showed that competencies did indeed mediate between
perceived role of academia and policy involvement (z=3.33; p<0.001) andbetween identification with a policy role and policy involvement (z=4.95;
p<0.001).

Portugal
Social work is an historical and consolidated occupation in the social welfare
system in Portugal. Nevertheless, it remains relatively weak and lacks a specificcode of ethics or power of accreditation. Social workers comprise a small
professional group when compared with professionals in the fields of educationor health care. Social workers are employed primarily in the fields of justice(25.4%), social security (24.4%) and health (21.7%). In addition, a significant
proportion are to be found in local government agencies (13.8%) (Branco 2010).
Lacking official data, the only indicator that we can use to determinate theevolution and current dimensions of this professional group is the number ofgraduates in social work. According to Branco (2009), there were 14,875 social
work graduates in Portugal in 2009. There are currently 20 recognized social
work programs in that country. Social work programs have been a recognized27

academic field within the university system since 1998 and, in addition, anumber of programs have also been established in polytechnics since 2003.
There are several master programs but only a few doctoral programs in social
work (Rodrigues and Branco 2009).
The research population in the current study was drawn from a list of potential
participants created with the cooperation of most of the institutions of higher
education with accredited social work programs at the undergraduate, graduate
and PhD levels in Portugal. A total of 408 faculty members were identified. Usingan online server service, the questionnaire was sent to all the academics in the
database between 20 October and 20 December 2014. In all, 113 valid responses
were received. These (N=113) consisted of 55 (48.7%) graduates in social work,
17 (15%) in sociology, eight (7.1%) in psychology and the remainder in different
scientific areas. With regard to the academic discipline of the respondents'
doctoral studies, 24 (212%) were in social work, 17 (14.2%) in sociology, five
(4.4%) in the social sciences, (3.5%) in psychology and the rest in different
scientific areas. 79 (69.9%) of the respondents were female and 34 (30.1%)
male.
Results
Levels of involvement in each of the 20 policy-related activities are presented intable 6.

28

Table 6: Levels of policy involvement in Portugal: Means, SDs anddistribution (N=110)
Form of Policy Engagement

M (SD)

Never

Once/Few Frequently

Worked with students

2.57(1.11)

26%

60%

23%

Participated in protest activity

2.44(1.07)

31%

56%

14%

Assisted in organizing service-2.38(1.08)

33%

54%

14%

2.22(1.05)

37%

54%

9%

Participated in a policy-related 2.22(1.07)

38%

52%

10%

(Abbreviated)

users
Interviewed in the press

activity by social workers
Advised policy makers

2.20(1.10)

39%

48%

13%

Published an article in the2.20(1.06)

38%

52%

10%

2.08(1.05)

42%

49%

9%

2.05(1.04)

44%

48%

8%

2.04(0.96)

38%

56%

6%

press
Analysed policy on behalf ofpolicy makers or an advocacy
organization
Advised a policy-related
committee
Formulated a position paper

29

Member of policy-related

2.02(1.08)

46%

43%

11%

Participated in a coalition

1.98(1.10)

51%

38%

11%

Advised an advocacy

1.86(1.03)

55%

39%

6%

1.84(1.05)

56%

37%

7%

Organized a protest activity

1.47(0.82)

71%

26%

3%

Wrote a blog in a social

1.45(0.94)

79%

14%

7%

1.33(0.78)

82%

14%

4%

1.30(0.68)

81%

17%

2%

1.29(0.66)

81%

17%

2%

1.25(0.72)

87 %

9%

4%

committeeorganization
Sent publications to policy
makersnetwork
Participated in an appeal tothe courts
Was a speaker at ademonstration
Testified in a legislative
committee
Chaired a policy-related
committee

As can be seen in the table, there is a relatively low overall level of engagement inpolicy practice activities on the part of Portuguese SWAs. The overall mean levelof involvement of Portuguese SWAs in the policy process was 1.95 (.63).
30

Nevertheless, over half of the SWAs engaged at least once in 10 of the 20
activities examined. The most widespread activities that Portuguese SWAs
undertook in order to influence social policy were working with students,
participating in protest activities and assisting in organizing service-users. Press
interviews, working with practitioners and advising policy-makers were also
relatively prevalent.
By contrast, the Portuguese SWAs least engaged in activities related tocommittees, namely testifying in a legislative committee or chairing a policyrelated committee, though serving as a member of policy-related committee andadvising a policy-related committee were slightly more prevalent.
The levels of engagement of Portuguese SWAs in various stages of the policy
process are shown in table 7.
Table 7: Levels of engagement of SWAs in Portugal in policy stages: Means,
SDs and distribution (N=103)
Extensively/ Veryextensively

The stage:

M (SD)

Never

Placing a problem on the agenda

2.48(1.24)

32%

11%

Placing a policy limitation on the2.37(1.16)

35%

7%

2.25(1.16)

37%

7%

agendaFormulating policy alternatives

31

Planning policy

1.93(1.19)

54%

7%

Evaluating policy

2.16(1.25)

42%

10%

The table shows low levels of engagement in policy stages by the Portuguese
SWAs. Over thirty percent had never engaged in any of the stages. Of the various
stages, placing a problem on the agenda was that in which the SWAs were mostengaged, while planning policy was the least common, with over half of theacademics having never engaged in it.
With regard to the Portuguese SWAs' perceptions as to the social role ofacademia (which include a commitment to assist society in solving its problems,
critiquing the social order and changing power relations in society), the meanscore was 3.76 (SD = 0.77). This can be regarded as a moderate level of support
for the social role of academia.
Employing the Burawoy (2005) typology of the roles of academics in society(and an additional role focussing on social work practice), we examined thepreferences of the Portuguese SWAs regarding different personal roles as
academics. The findings are depicted in figure 1.
Figure 1:The perceived role of SWAs in Portugal (policy role, critical role,
professional role, public role and social work practice role)

32

The findings in figure 1 indicate that the social work practice role is that withwhich the SWAs most identify. This is followed by the policy role, theprofessional role and the critical role, all of which receive similar levels of
support. The public role is, comparatively, the perceived personal role withwhich the Portuguese respondents identified least.
The perceived level of support for engagement in policy-related activities by theacademic institutions in which SWAs are employed was examined in relationshipto support by the university administration, the school of social work andcolleagues' support and that of students. The findings are presented in figure 2.

33

Figure 2: The perceived level of support for engagement in policy within
academic institutions by SWAs in Portugal

The findings in the Portuguese case, as illustrated in figure 2, indicate that the
support for policy engagement that SWAs received from their academic
environment (the university administration, the school of social work, andstudents) was positive but moderate.
Table 8 presents the associations between the predictor variables and the levelof engagement of Portuguese social work academics in policy-related activities.
Table 8: The associations between the predictor variables and level ofengagement in Academic Policy Practice (APP) by SWAs in Portugal (N =106)
The predictor:

Engagement in APP

34

PearsonSignificance

r

level

Perceived academic environment
supportStudents support.39 **.000

School of social work support.31 **.001

University administration support.32 **.001

Perceived social role of academia

.06

.523

Developing social work practice

.10

.276

Policy.11.263

Professional

.02

.801

Public.04.663

Critical

.15

.130

Perceived personal role

*p<0.05**p<0.01***p<0.001

The table does not reveal any statically significant level of relationship between
the level of engagement in policy related activities and the perceived social roleof academia or the perceived personal role. It does show that the level ofperceived academic environment support (p<0.01) is associated withengagement in policy-related activities even though this is relatively weak (r =0.39 and r2 = 15% or less).

35

Puerto RicoSocial work first emerged in Puerto Rico at the end of the 1920’s. Its inception
was highly influenced by the social work movement in the USA, but also by thediversity of social and economic problems on the Island, particularly in the rural
areas. Under military governments, social workers on the Island intervened
mainly through the development of localities (Estremera-Jiménez 2015). This
community model became the primary method of intervention used by social
workers in rural communities around the Island with the main purpose of
integrating all citizens into the mainstream of society (Guardiola-Ortíz 1998;
Negrón-Velázquez and Zavaleta- Calderón 2003; Estremera-Jiménez,2015). The
formal creation of the profession was established in 1934 by Law # 41- (“Ley elProyecto de regulación del Trabajo Social en Puerto Rico”). In 1940 this law wasrevised, changing its name to Law # 171. Although a few parts of law 171 havebeen revised since then, the social work profession is still regulated by this law.
As of today, there are approximately 7,000 licensed social workers in PuertoRico. Most social workers are employed by a governmental agency known as the
Department of Children and Family Services, and in the school setting.
Puerto Rico has twenty undergraduate and four graduate social work programs.
The reconceptualization of the social work profession that is still occurring in
Latin America and in Puerto Rico recognizes policy practice as an essential tool
for social change and to achieve social and economic justice. Integrating thismethod in the daily life of social work practice has been recognized as aneffective and powerful mechanism for social change. Thus, social work scholars
in Puerto Rico are expected to teach social work skills for policy practice to guide36students to becoming successful advocates for just social welfare policies, whichis consonant with current global social work trends. This mission becomes more
complicated if we take into consideration that a recent study among social work
undergraduate exiting students in eight countries of Latin America, including
Puerto Rico, showed that the field of macro practice, which includes policy
practice and administration, was not the preferred field of practice for this future
generation of social workers (Negrón-Velázquez 2014a,b).
In Puerto Rico, social work education is consider as one of four core factors thatfacilitate the practice of this profession on the Island: Complex social problems isthe first factor, followed by efforts to raise consciousness about the profession.
The third factor relates to the availability of social work services (GuardiolaOrtíz, Guemárez Cruz and Rivera Casiano 2007). In spite this recognition,
Guardiola and her colleagues explain that the field of social work education has
been criticized, mainly because it frequently emphasizes work with individuals
and not with communities or at the social policy level.
The field of social policy has been globally recognized as an essential tool tomanage social inequities and to pursue economic development and social justice.
However, Puerto Rico has a particular political situation that discourages these
professionals to become more involve in policy practice. As a colony of theUnited States, social policies have been created mainly in the United States andthen transferred to Puerto Rico. Social workers are expected to implement thesepolicies without questions.
A study conducted on the Island among legislators to explore their perceptions
about the involvement of social workers in the field of policy practice showed37

that legislators did not know the functions and roles that these professionals canassume (Guardiola-Ortíz and Serra-Taylor 2002). Although they consideredsocial work an important profession, they noted that social workers hardly evercreate or initiate social policies, and they believed this situation was due to theirlack of knowledge regarding legislative procedures. The lack of initiatives tocreate policies that respond to needs of citizens also emerged in the present
study.
From January 31, 2015 through March 30, 2015 the data collection process of thepresent study was conducted. The sample framework of social work academics
in Puerto Rico was constructed using three main sources: 1) mailing lists ofdiverse organizations such as the Puerto Rican Association of Schools of Social
Work (ANAETS); 2) online information available from social work programs in
Puerto Rico; and, 3) direct communication with program directors (email,telephone calls). At the beginning of this stage, 235 email addresses wereidentified. After eliminating duplicates, wrong addresses and people, a total of
195 eligible SWAs were identified throughout the Island.
The questionnaire was distributed online to all eligible SWAs in Puerto Rico. The
data collection process was managed directly by the Principal Investigator (Dra.
Negrón-Velázquez), and two undergraduate research assistants (Viviana RiveraMulero, Psychology Department; Ashley González Pagán, Economics) using a
Monkey Survey. In a two months period and after several attempts to increase
participation, 84 SWAs completed the online questionnaire, for a response rateof 43%. Data analysis was conducted using the Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS).

38

The majority of participants were females (80 %). Most participants (n=44,57%) had a master degree in social work, and 59% were not permanent
professors in their social work program. Half of the sample worked as a parttime SWA. The other half were full time professors.
Results
Levels of involvement in each of the 20 policy-related activities are presented intable 9.
Table 9: Levels of engagement in policy by SWAs in Puerto Rico: Means, SDs
and distribution (N=84)
Form of Policy Engagement

M (SD)

Never

Once/Few Frequently

3.12

10%

48%

42%

8%

56%

36%

10%

56%

34%

22%

49%

29%

20%

51%

29%

(Abbreviated )Participated in protest activity(.96)
Participated in a policy-related

3.06

activity by social workers(.90)

Worked with students

2.99
(.95)

Served in a policy-related

2.71

committee(1.11)

Participated in a coalition

2.61(1.11)

39

Assisted in organizing service-

2.91

users

(.88)

Formulated a position paper

2.50

10%

66%

24%

26%

52%

22%

30%

52%

18%

24%

61%

15%

24%

62%

14%

48%

40%

12%

48%

40%

12%

38%

51%

11%

54%

35%

11%

(1.10)
Analyzed policy on behalf of

2.35

policy(1.09)

makers or an advocacy
organization
Interviewed in the press

2.52(1.00)

Advised a policy-related

2.49

committee(1.01)

Advised policy makers

1.97(1.09)

Advised an advocacy

1.73

organization(.98)

Published an article in the

2.09

press

(1.04)

Chaired a policy-related

1.91

committee(1.11)

40

Organized a protest activity

1.82

57%

33%

10%

63%

27%

10%

59%

33%

8%

59%

33%

8%

58%

36%

6%

66%

31%

3%

(1.07)
Wrote a blog in a social

1,72

network(1.06)

Sent publications to policy

1.71

makers(.99)

Was a speaker at a

1.79

demonstration(1.04)

Testified in a legislative

1.82

committee(1.02)

Participated in an appeal to the

1.58

courts(.88)

Note: The scale ranged from 1(never); 2(once); 3 (a few times); and 4(frequently).
The overall mean level of SWA involvement in policy-related activities was 2.29
(1.04). Participants showed high levels of engagement in the following activities:(42%) participated in protest activities; (36%) participated in a policy related
activity organized by social workers; and worked with students to influencesocial policies (34%). About one third of the participants had served in a policyrelated committee and in a coalition, while 24% had engaged in assisting service
users to organize (see table 9).

41

Meanwhile, participants showed low levels of engagement in activities related tothe dissemination of their personal and professional views, such as writing a
blog in a social network (10%), and sending their publications to policy makers(8%). About 10% had organized a protest activity, only 6% had testified in a
legislative committee, and 3% participated in an appeal to the courts.
These trends show a profile of SWAs incline to support activities organized byothers to influence social policy, but less willing to engage in initiatives createdby them to directly influence social policies.
The next table reports on Puerto Rican SWAs' level of engagement in the various
stages of the policy process.
Table 10 : Levels of engagement by SWAs in Puerto Rico in policy stages:
Means, SDs and distribution (N=84)
Extensively/ Veryextensively

The stage:

M (SD)

Never

Placing a problem on the agenda

2.47 (.95)

16%

46%

Placing a policy limitation on the

2.42 (.97)

18%

44%

Formulating policy alternatives

2.56 (.93)

13%

51%

Planning policy

2.19 (1.07)

35%

40%

agendaNote: The scale ranged from 1=never to 5= very extensively.

42

More than half of SWAs showed extensive engagement in evaluating policy(57%), and in formulating policy alternatives (51%). Close to half of the SWAs
(46%) engaged extensively in placing a social problems in the agenda, and inplacing a policy limitation on the agenda (44%). However, the initial stage of thepolicy formulation process was not very attractive to SWAs. In this case, only
40% engaged extensively in policy planning.
The next results pertain to the perceptions held by Puerto Rican SWAs regarding
their impact on policy makers.
Table 11: The perceived impact of Puerto Rican SWAs: Means, SDs anddistribution (N=84)
Extensively/Veryextensively

The item:

M (SD)

Never

Policy makers:
Read publications

3.28 (2.05) 30%

13.5%

Cited publications

3.17 (2.11) 37%

13.7%

Drew upon recommendations &3.09 (1.98) 31%

13.6%

3.04 (2.02) 34%

13.6%

adopted proposals
Advocacy organizations:
Cited publications

43

Drew upon recommendations

3.08 (1.92) 31.1%

12.2%

Table 11 shows that more than one third of participants did not perceive
themselves as having an impact on policy makers. Around a third of SWAs in
Puerto Rico perceived that their publications have never been cited by policy
makers (37%) or an advocacy organization (34%); and 31% perceived that theirpolicy recommendations had never been taken into account by policy makers.
Less than 15% of participants reported that policy makers read their
publications and took their recommendations into account through the diversestages of policy formulation.
According to the findings in the figure below (see Figure 3), social work SWAs
perceive that their most important role in the academia is to influence thepractice of social workers [M 4.7, SD .75] particularly the way in which they
perceive social problems. This subscale showed a substantial internal reliability(Cronbach Alpha of .91). The second most important role for social work
scholars was their professional role [4.5, .84]. This role includes creating
scientific knowledge and theory development. The internal reliability of theprofessional role subscale was .75.
The policy role emerged as the third most important perceived social role
among SWAs, with a substantial internal reliability of .85. This role was followedby the critical role and the public role. The policy role [4.43, .86] refers to the
responsibility of SWAs to influence the way in which policy makers and the
public perceive social problems and how to handle them. The critical role [4.40,.95] emphasizes the responsibility to promote critical thinking skills among
44

SWAs, policy makers and the general public. Its internal reliability emerged as.76. Meanwhile, the public role subscale [4.09, 1.12] yielded a substantial
Cronbach Alpha of .85. This factor was concerned with influencing the way inwhich the general public perceive and understand social problems.

Figure 3: Perceived roles as SWAs in
Puerto Rico

4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
4
3.8
3.6
Social Work
Practice Role

Professional
Role

Policy Role

Critical Role

Public Role

When asked about the degree to which they had the knowledge, skills,
motivation, commitment, and self-efficacy to influence social policy, respondents
felt they had the necessary commitment [4.37, SD .8] followed by the necessary
knowledge [4.25, .77] to influence social policy. Third, they had the motivation[4.17, SD .96] and, fourth, the skills [4.09, SD .95] to do this task. Finally, theyreported to be self-efficient [3.97, SD 1.0] and capable to influence such area ofintervention (see figure 4). The internal consistency of this scale was substantial(.85). The mean value and standard deviation for the scale as a whole was 3.02
(1.31).

45

Figure 4: Perceived personal policy competencies among
SWAs in Puerto Rico
6
4
2
0

SD
Mean

Mean
SD

Figure 5 presents data regarding the perceived support for policy engagement by
the academic institutions in which Puerto Rican SWAs are employed. SWAs
perceived that they had relatively high levels of support from students [3.92, SD
1.25] regarding their practices to influence policy. This support was also
perceived from their school and colleagues [3.02, SD 1.27]. The university
administration [2.61, SD 1.5] was the least supportive entity as perceived by the
respondents. The mean for the total scale of nine items was 2.99, and thestandard deviation was 1.31. The internal consistency of the scale wassubstantial (.85).

46

Figure 5: Perceived support for policy
involvement for Puerto Rican SWAs
6
5
4
SD

3

Mean

2
1
0
Students
SupportSchool of Social
University
Work
Administration

Total Scale

Table 12 presents the Pearson correlation coefficients of several variables. The
results yielded a significant association at the 0.05 level between the perceived
academic environment support, particularly students ‘support, and the level ofengagement in Academic Policy Practice (APP). APP was also significantly
related to the perceived social policy practice competencies at the 0.01 level.
These findings suggest that, as support from students and self-perceived
competencies to influence social policy increases, the higher the level ofengagement to influence policy among SWAs.
Further regression analyses (see Table 13) show that the selected independent
variables did not explain the level of engagement in policy practice. However,this model explained close to 40% (AR2) of the variance.
Table 12: The associations between the predictor variables and level ofengagement in policy (N=77)
The predictor:

Engagement in APP

47

Perceived academic environment
support:Students support.278*

School of social work support.139

University administration support.246

Perceived social role of academia.178

Perceived personal role:
Developing social work practice.078

Policy.181

Professional.053

Public.109

Critical.053

Perceived policy practice competencies*p<0.05**p<0.01.571*****p<0.001

Table 13: Regression coefficients (B, β) of the explained variance of SWAs`
APP
Step
1

Academic position
Tenure

48

B

SEB

Β

R²

R²

5.18

1.46

.654

.428

.394

2

Academic position

5.18

1.46

.654

.428

.394

1.46

.654

.428

.394

1.40

.635

.404

.366

Tenure3Social role of academia.190

Academic position

5.18

Tenure4Social role of academia.190

Public-.096

Professional.040

Policy.135

Critical.067

Academic position

4.61

Tenure*p<0.05

Social role of academia

2.35

Public-.016

Professional-.076

Policy.158

Critical.030

Competencies.298**p<0.01***p<0.001

49United Kingdom
This section focusses upon how SWAs within the four nations of the UK(England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) influence social policy. In
recent years, social work education in the UK has become a contested domain
whereby SWAs have been criticized by both employers and politicians for not
supplying suitably qualified and competent social work practitioners able topractice from day one. Moriarty et al., (2011 p. 1531) have noted there is ‘afundamental distinction between those who view qualifying education as adevelopmental process and those who view it as an end in itself’. These opposing
views have sharpened following the financial crisis and the introduction of‘austerity measures’ whereby employers have experienced reductions in theirbudgets and have needed newly qualified social workers that could be operatingwith full caseloads as quickly as possible (Carpenter et al. 2015). The influential
Social Work Taskforce’s Report stated that; ‘Educators need to share in the real
challenges posed in service delivery and avoid any temptation to criticise fromthe sidelines’ (SWTF 2009, 1.25).
Since then, there has been a parliamentary report (All Party ParliamentaryGroup for Social Work 2013), and then the: ‘Ludicrous, but telling spectacle oftwo reviews of social work education in 2014 commissioned simultaneously by
two separate government departments.' (Bamford 2015, p. 28). One of thesereports eschews the international definition of social work, criticises an overreliance on anti-oppressive practice and seeks to redefine social work as local
authority child protection practice (Narey 2014). It is against this backdrop of aprofession under siege, that SWAs have sought to operate. This coupled with a50

neo-liberal context in which market values are predominant and been seen as
essential for progress and where the focus has been on reducing dependence andspending on welfare. There is a continued attack on those in receipt of welfare
whereby the government has sought to reduce welfare state provision andspending, sought to expand choice and opportunity and promote a ‘mixed
economy’ in which the public, private and voluntary sectors all play their part,
often in completion.
Alongside these trends there has also been a belief in managerialist practices.
This views costs as being controllable through competition, where the statemonitors quality to identified standards and where there has been a reduction in
the power of professionals or trade unions when these are constructed as placing
their own interests above those of the customer (Wilson et al. 2008). At the timeof writing the UK has just elected a Conservative government to powersuggesting that there will be no change in this direction of travel, but more likelythat it will speed up and the need for SWAs to influence social welfare policies
will become even greater.
Social work in the UK is an all graduate profession in which students can qualify
at graduate or post graduate level except in Northern Ireland where this atundergraduate level only. Within the UK there are two main types of university;
the pre-1992 universities which tend to be more research active and post-1992
universities whose funding is usually more dependent on student numbers. The
two types of universities also tend to call similar posts by different names so alecturer in a pre-1992 university is equal to a senior lecturer in a post -1992

51

university and a senior lecturer in a pre-1992 university is equivalent to aprincipal lecturer in a post-1992 university.
An electronic survey was distributed via the listserve of the Joint Universities
Council Social Work Education Committee (JUC SWEC) to its individual
university representatives and an electronic communications board for SWAs.
Both of these routes were circulated twice but after a poor response, the authors
wrote to each of the representatives of the Social Work Research Committee (JUC
SWEC) to increase the response rate to 111, although not all the respondents
answered all the questions. At present there is no accurate count of the numberof social work academics but noting Moriarty et al’s (2008) this would suggest areasonable response rate although it is interesting to speculate why it was so
difficult to get a sample of this size.
Over half of those who responded to the survey were female (54.2% n=52) withan average age of 53.32, most held a permanent position (94.1% n= 95) andwere likely to be a senior lecturer in a post 1992 university or lecturer in a pre1992 university. Academics were likely to have spent 13.16 years in social work
practice before entering academia where they have been employed for the last
9.52 years. This assumes that that there is a single direction of travel from beinga practitioner to becoming an academic. Whilst this may be true in most cases, it
is not so in all. There are social workers who hold both academic andpractitioner posts and those who have moved in and out of academia.
Interestingly a third of those who responded occupied academic positions as
professors, suggesting professors may be over- represented in this sample.

52

Table 14 below identifies a range of engagement activities undertaken by social
work academics. The overall level of the engagement of UK SWAs in policyrelated activities was 2.27 (.59). From the table it is clear there is a wide
diversity of engagement activities. Of these activities on a scale of 1-4 (where 1
was never, 2 once, 3 a few times and 4 - frequently), the most frequent form ofengagement activities were assisted in organizing service users (M=3.06),
participated in a coalition (M=2-89), served in a policy-related committee(M=2.81) and participated in a policy related activity by social workers(M=2.80). The least likely forms of engagement were participated in an appeal tothe courts (M=1.43), testified to a legislative committee (M= 1.44), was a speakerin a demonstration (M=1.55) and organized a protest activity or wrote a bog in asocial network M=1.71).
Table 14: Levels of engagement in policy in the UK: Means, SDs anddistribution (N=111)
Form of Policy Engagement

M (SD)

Never

Once/Few Frequently

2.75

20.4%

54.6%

25%

27.5%

57.8%

14.7%

16.2%

56.7%

27%

(Abbreviated )Participated in protest activity(1.04)
Interviewed in the press

2.47(1.05)

Served in a policy-related

2.81

committee(1.01)

53

Advised an advocacy

2.42

organization(1.05)

Assisted in organizing service-

3.06

users

(.88)

Worked with students

2.48

25.7%

55%

19.3%

10%

58.2%

31.8%

25.7%

53.2%

21.1%

16.4%

55.4%

28.2%

25.7%

55%

19.3%

22.7%

54.6%

22.7%

30.3%

55.9%

13.8%

41.8%

45.5%

12.7%

34.2%

51.3%

14.4%

73.9%

23.4%

2.7%

(1.09)
Participated in a policy-related

2.80

activity by social workers(1.02)

Advised policy makers

2.55(1.07)

Advised a policy-related

2.61

committee(1.07)

Formulated a position paper

2.40(1.06)

Sent publications to policy

2.21

makers(1.12)

Published an article in the

2.24

press

(1.08)

Testified in a legislative

1.44

committee

(.82)

54

Participated in a coalition

2.89

15.3%

53.1%

31.5%

41.4%

48.6%

9.9%

58.7%

31.2%

10.1%

60.4%

34.2%

5.4%

70.9%

26.4%

2.7%

75.7%

21.6%

2.7%

64.9%

26.1%

9.0%

(1.02)
Analyzed policy on behalf of

2.18

policy(1.09)

makers or an advocacy
organization
Chaired a policy-related

1.86

committee(1.11)

Organized a protest activity

1.71
(.98)

Was a speaker at a

1.51

demonstration(.87)

Participated in an appeal to the

1.43

courts(.83)

Wrote a blog in a social

1.71

network(1.05)

Note: The scale ranged from 1(never); 2(once); 3 (a few times); and 4(frequently).
As can be seen from Table 15, the majority of SWAs engaged in influencing
social policy with over half of the respondents reporting that they had frequent
experience of formulating social welfare policy alternatives (65.2%), placing
social problem on the public agenda (61.5%) or had engaged in placing a welfare55policy limitation on the public agenda (57.8%). Less than half of SWAs (41.4% on
both questions) had been frequently involved in formulating social welfare
policy or evaluating social welfare policy.
Table 15: Levels of engagement in policy stages in the UK: Means, SDs anddistribution (N=111)
A few
times/
Frequently
The stage:

M (SD)

Never

Placing a problem on the agenda

3.50 (1.17)

11.9%

61.5%

Placing a policy limitation on the

3.27 (1.39)

22%

57.8%

Formulating policy alternatives

3.49 (1.16)

11%

65.2%

Planning policy

2.86 (1.32)

26.4%

41.5%

Evaluating policy

3.35 (1.32)

15.7%

41.5%

agendaNote: The scale ranged from 1=never to 5= frequently.
Examples of this engagement include being seconded to government, giving
evidence and advising parliamentary committees, chairing or acting as an expert
to government committees, speaking at party political conferences, speaking andwriting to Members of Parliament, giving interviews to the media and publishingresearch in national newspapers, engaging with local authorities on key issues,
providing position papers, lobbying with service users and speaking at public
and open evenings.
56

Having indicated that there was a high level of engagement in seeking to
influence social welfare policy, the perceived impact of these actions issomewhat less (see table 16). The means of reading, citing and drawing uponrecommendation’s by the national government, local government or by
advocacy organisations were all within the ‘’a few times’ category (on a 1-5 scalewith 1 never and 5 very extensively). There was a slight increase in terms ofimpact with advocacy organization over policy makers, but this was still quite
marginal.
Table 16: Perceived impact of SWAs in the UK: Means, SDs and distribution(N=111)
Extensively/Veryextensively

The item:

M (SD)

Never

Policy makers:
Read publications

3.30 (1.73) 13.6%

7.3%

Cited publications

3.16 (1.80) 19.3%

6.4%

Drew upon recommendations

3.17 (1.74) 17.3%

6.3%

Cited publications

3.38 (1.71) 12.8%

10.1%

Drew upon recommendations

3.47 (1.70) 10.3%

10.3%

Advocacy organizations:

Note: The scale ranged from 1=never to 5= Very intensively; 6=Don’t know.

57When the questionnaire respondents were asked about their role as SWAs on ascale of 1-5 (where 1 was strongly disagree and 5 strongly agree) all the results
clustered between the agree and strongly agree section of the scale (see figure6). This suggests that all five roles were significant for SWAs. However, it was not
surprising that the nearly everyone indicated that their role was concerned with
influencing and developing social work students for practice (M = 4.72) followed
by influencing the general public and how they think about social problems (M=4.41). This was then followed by seeking to influence welfare policy (M=4.38).
Slightly fewer academics agreed that their role should also include developing
knowledge and influencing their fellow academic professionals (M=4.16) andalso agreeing about the importance of the need to promote critical social
thinking (M=4.10).
Figure 6: The perceived role of SWAs in the UK
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
4
3.9
3.8
3.7
Social work
practice

PublicPolicy58

Professional

CriticalThe SWAs were asked to identify the degree (on a scale of 1-5 where 1 was not at
all and 5 to a large extent) to which they had the required competencies toinfluence welfare policy. The highest scored item (see figure 7) referred tohaving a commitment to influencing welfare policy with a mean of M=3.93 and38 (34.2%) of respondents indicating ‘to a large extent’ and none indicating ‘notat all’. The second highest competency referred to was having the motivation(M=3.83), followed by having the knowledge to influence welfare policy(M=3.57). However when asked whether they had the self-efficacy or skills toengage effectively in influencing welfare policies, the results were less positive(M= 3.42 and M= 3.21 respectively).
Figure 7: Personal policy involvement competencies of SWAs in the UK
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Commitment

Motivation

Knowledge

Self-efficacy

SkillsOverall

Having identified that SWAs are committed and motivated to influence welfare
policies but identifying the need for greater skills and self-efficacy, it is important
to examine how their universities support them in achieving this. On a scale of 159

5 where 1 = ‘not at all’ and 5 to ’a large extent’ the greatest influence on SWAs isthe department or school in which they are employed (M=3.58) followed by the
influence and expectations of students (M=3.49) and lastly their university
administration (M=3.32) (see figure 8). These mean scores were all very similar
with only a mean difference between scores of 0.26.
Figure 8: Support within academic institutions for SWAs' policy
involvement in the UK
3.6
3.55
3.5
3.45
3.4
3.35
3.3
3.25
3.2
3.15
School of social work

Students

University administration

Table 17: The associations between the predictor variables and the level ofengagement in policy in the UK (N=111)
The predictor:

Engagement in Policy

Perceived academic environment support:
Students support

0.14

60

School of social work support

0.22*

University administration support

0.43***

Perceived social role of academia

0.04

Perceived personal role:
Developing social work practice-0.12

Policy0.21*

Professional

0.12

Public

0.09

Critical

0.05

Perceived policy practice competencies*p<0.05**p<0.01

0.72******p<0.001

Table 18: Regression coefficients (B, β) of the explained variance of SWAs`
policy involvement in the UK
B

SEB

Β

R²

R²

Age (years)

.02**

.01

.29**

.24

.24

Gender (Male)

.35**

.11

.29**

Seniority (Years)

.02

.01

.17

Age (years)

.02*

.01

.27*

.32

.11

Step
1

2

61

3

5

*p<0.05

Gender (Male)

.32**

.11

.27**

Seniority (Years)

.01

.01

.09

School support

-.04

.06

-.08

University support

.22**

.07

.40**

Age (years)

.02*

.01

.24*

Gender (Male).40***.11.33***

Seniority (Years)

.02

.01

.17

School support

-.01

.06

-.03

University support

.18**

.07

.33**

Perceived personal role (policy)

.16*

.07

.22*

Age (years)

.01

.01

.12

Gender (Male)

.25**

.08

.21**

Seniority (Years)

.01

.01

.07

School support

-.08

.04

-.16

University support

.11*

.05

.19*

Perceived personal role (policy)

.08

.05

.11

Competencies.42***.05.62*****p<0.01***p<0.001

62

.36

.04

.63

.26

Based on the result from correlation analysis, only background variables andother predictors that have significant relationship with level of engagement were
included in a series of multiple regression models to predict the level ofengagement of SWAs in policy practice. In the final model 4, a substantial 63% of
the variance of the model was explained by predictors that include age, gender,
seniority in academia, support from university administration, support from theschool of social work, perceived role in policy development and level ofperceived personal policy involvement competencies. Specifically, the mostsignificant unique factor is level of perceived competencies, followed by genderand support from university administration for engagement in policy practice.
This means that academics who are male, perceived greater competencies inpolicy involvement and received more support from university administration
are more likely to engage in policy practice.
It is clear from these results although SWAs may currently feel challenged by theexternal world they remain committed and motivated to become more effective
in influencing welfare policy and that this could be best supported by their
university administration and developing policy influencing skills.

Discussion
This cross-national study undertook a quantitative examination of theinvolvement of faculty members in social work in the social policy formulation
process in four different countries – Israel, Portugal, Puerto Rico and the United
Kingdom. In all, 451 academics employed in schools of social work in the four
countries participated in the survey.
63

While there were differences in the findings of the researchers in the four
countries, a number of commonalities also emerged. The findings showed that
SWAs were involved in diverse policy-related activities and with varying levels
of intensity. The overall mean level of involvement in these activities can be
described as moderate and it varied from 1.95 (.63) in Portugal, 2.01 (.62) inIsrael, 2.27 (.59) in the UK to 2.29 (1.04) in Puerto Rico.
Table 19 offers a comparative perspective of the policy-related activities
undertaken most by SWAs in our study.
Table 19: The most common ("frequently undertaken") policy-related
activities among SWAs
Israel (N=143)

Portugal

Puerto Rico

UK (N=111)(N=103 )(N=84)

Participated in

Worked with

Participated in

Assisted inprotest activity

students

protest activity

organizing service
users

Interviewed inParticipated inParticipated inParticipated in a

the press

protest activity

policy-related

coalition

activities by social
workers
Served in a

Assisted in

Worked with

Served in a policy

policy relatedorganizing

students

related committee

committee

service users

64Advised an

Interviewed inServed in a policy

Participated in

advocacy

the press

related committee

policy-relatedorganization

activities by social
workers

Assisted inParticipated in a

Participated in a

Participated inorganizing

policy-related

coalition

protest activity

service users

activity by social
workers

Worked with

Advised policy

Assisted in

Advised a policy-

students

makersorganizing service

related committee

users
Participated in

Published an

Formulated a

Advised policy

policy-related

article in theposition paper

makersactivities bypress

social workers

Table 19 clearly shows that there is marked similarity in the activities mostfrequently undertaken by SWAs in the different countries. In all of the four,
working with service users and social workers are frequently undertaken policy
related activities as is participation in protest activities. In most of the countries,
working with students and serving on policy related committees are also among
the more frequent policy-related activities undertaken by SWAs. The findings
also reveal that SWAs tended to engage most in more active, public sphere routes
of influence within the policy arena (such as participation in protests and serving

65

in a policy related committee) and in activities aimed at affecting policies in
conjunction with traditional social work partners (service users andpractitioners). The types of policy-related activities generally associated withacademics - advising policy makers and policy committees, formulating a
position paper and sending publications to policy makers - were generally lesscommon among SWAs.
However, differences between the countries also emerge. Thus, in thePortuguese sample, there is a greater tendency to employ the mass media whileamong UK SWAs advising policy makers and policy committees is more common.
Unlike the other cohorts, Israeli SWAs tend to work more frequently withadvocacy organizations and participating in a coalition was a more common
form of policy-related activity among Puerto Rican SWAs than among social
work faculty in the other countries studied.
Table 20: SWAs' involvement in policy stages - M(SD)IsraelPortugal

Puerto Rico

UKThe stage:(N= 143)(N= 103)(N= 84)(N= 111)

Placing a

3.07 (1.27)

2.48(1.24)

2.47 (.95)

3.50 (1.17)

2.65 (1.29)

2.37(1.16)

2.42 (.97)

3.27 (1.39)

problem on
the agenda
Placing a
policylimitation on
the agenda

66Formulating

2.50 (1.36)

2.25(1.16)

2.56 (.93)

3.49 (1.16)

2.08 (1.28)

1.93(1.19)

2.19 (1.07)

2.86 (1.32)

2.17 (1.27)

2.16(1.25)

2.68 (.99)

3.35 (1.32)

policyalternatives
Planning
policyEvaluating
policyThe findings regarding engagement in various stages of the policy process reflect
divergences between the countries. While SWAs in Israel and Portugal are
involved more in the initial stages of the process and tend to focus upon placing
issues and policy limitations on the agenda, this is not the case in Puerto Ricoand the UK. In Puerto Rico there is greater involvement in the formulation andevaluating policy stages, while in the UK SWAs appear to be involved to an equal
degree in most of the policy formulation stages. It is interesting to note that
SWAs in all the four countries are least involved in the planning policy stage.
Table 21: Perceived impact - M(SD)The ItemIsraelPuerto RicoUK

(N= 143)(N= 84)(N= 111)2.65 (.14)

3.28 (2.05)

3.30 (1.73)

Policy makers:
Read publications

67

Cited publications 2.60 (.16)

3.17 (2.11)

3.16 (1.80)

Drew upon

2.68 (.15)

3.09 (1.98)

3.17 (1.74)

Cited publications 2.99 (.16)

3.40 (2.02)

3.38 (1.71)

Drew upon

3.08 (1.92)

3.47 (1.70)

recommendations
Advocacy
organizations:3.03 (.15)

recommendations

Assessing their impact upon policy makers and advocacy organizations, the datafrom three countries (this data is missing in the Portuguese case) indicates that
SWAs generally perceive of their impact as moderate, at best. The impact uponadvocacy organizations is higher than that on policy makers in all of the three
countries, possibly indicating that advocacy organizations are more accessible ormore likely to seek assistance in thinking about policy than formal policy makers.
Another conclusion that emerges from the table is that clearly the Puerto Rican
and UK SWAs assess their impact as greater than that of their Israeli colleagues.
Table 22: The explanatory variables
The

IsraelPortugal

Puerto RicoUK

variable:(N = 143)(N = 106)(N = 77)(N = 111)

Perceived
academic

68

environment
support:Students

3.76 (1.08)

3.00 (1.0)

3.92 (1.25)

3.49 (1.53)

School of

3.39 (.89)

3.25 (1.17)

3.02 (1.27)

3.58 (1.24)

3.15 (.92)

3.36 (1.26)

2.61 (1.50)

3.32 (1.09)

DSWP

4.65 (.63)

4.67 (.43)

4.70 (.75)

4.72 (.82)

Policy4.37 (.67)

4.31 (.63)

4.43 (.86)

4.38 (.81)

Professional 4.25 (.66)

4.31 (.72)

4.50 (.84)

4.16 (.82)

Public4.23 (.73)

4.02 (.79)

4.09 (1.12)

4.41 (.79)

Critical

3.97 (.91)

4.26 (.75)

4.40 (.95)

4.10

Perceived

3.41(1.02)

3.02 (1.31)

3.59 (.87)

social work
Academic
institution
Perceived
personal role:(.91)

policypracticecompetencies

With regard to support from the academic environment for policy-related
activities, in all the four countries the level of support by both the university
administration and the school of social work is perceived by the respondents as
mediocre to moderate. These findings appear to indicate that SWAs do not sensethat the institutional environment encourages their involvement in policy

69

processes. However, apart from the Portuguese cohort, SWAs in all the othercountries rate support for their policy-related activities among students asstronger. This is particularly the case for Puerto Rico and Israel.
Looking at the perceived personal roles of the participants as social work
academics, clear-cut similarities emerge. The SWAs in all the four countries tend
to strongly identify with all the five role types, though (perhaps not surprisingly)
this is greatest with that of the development of social work practice. It would
appear that the scholars do regard playing a societal role as an integral part oftheir academic activities. In the context of this study, the high level of support
for a policy role among the SWAs in all the four countries is of particular interest.
Despite the SWAs' marked support for their policy role, the findings regarding
their perceived personal competencies to engage in policy-related activities isonly moderate (here again the data from the Portuguese cohort is missing).
Thus, while SWAs are committed to engaging in policy, they are less confidant
regarding their ability to actually do so.
Table 23: Pierson Correlations with Academic Policy Practice (APP)

The

IsraelPortugalvariable:
Perceived
academic
environment
support:70

Puerto Rico

UK

Students

0.04

0.39**

0.28*

0.14

School of

0.01

0.31**

0.14

022*

0.13

0.32**

0.25

0.43***

0.19*

0.06

0.18

0.04

DSWP

0.15

0.10

0.08

-0.12

Policy0.40 ***

0.11

0.18

0.21*

0.30***

0.02

0.05

0.12

Public0.29***

0.04

0.10

0.09

Critical

0.20*

0.015

0.05

0.05

Perceived

0.65***

0.57**

0.72***

social work
Academic
institution
Perceivedsocial role ofacademia
Perceived
personal role:

Professional

policypracticecompetencies

Not unexpectedly, the strongest association with engagement in policy-related
activities among SWAs is with competencies. Clearly, SWAs will be more likely toengage in policy-related activities if they sense that they are competent to do so.

71

Differences between the countries emerge with regard to the association
between institutional support and perceived academic roles and engagement inpolicy. While in two of the countries (Portugal and the UK) the academic
institution is strongly associated with policy involvement and in Puerto Rico thisis true of student's support, in the Israeli case there is no association. By
contrast, in the Israeli case role perceptions are strongly associated with thepolicy engagement of SWAs, though this is not the case in the other cohorts.
This study has three main limitations. The first is its cross-sectional nature,
which enables us to learn about associations between variables but not aboutcausality. Second, the findings are based on self reporting. This creates thepossibility of social desirability impact and they are obviously are memorydependent. Finally, through cross-national, it focuses on faculty members ofschools of social work in only four countries, which inevitably limits
generalizations based on its findings.
Its limitations notwithstanding, this study of SWAs’ activities in the social policy
arena sheds some new light on the role of social work academia in different
countries in the social policy formulation process and the factors associated with
it. The first quantitative, cross-national study of the policy role of faculty
members of schools of social work, it shows that SWAs seek to influence social
policy beyond the limited confines of research dissemination, which has been thefocus of most inquiry in the academia-policy nexus literature. While the level ofengagement is sometimes low and uneven, it does indicate that SWAs in different
countries seek to move beyond their academic roles and to make good on a72

commitment to social change, an integral component of the social work
profession.
The findings of the study have implications for social work practice andeducation. Social work educators often enjoy a privileged position in society.
They have access to resources and knowledge, and have the status andemployment position that can enable them to play a role in the policy
formulation process in their societies. This alongside their other academic andteaching roles. As such, they can contribute to the furthering of social justice intheir societies and serve as crucial partners to the effort of other social workers,
advocates and service-users in their social policy efforts. It would appear that
SWAs do play this role but clearly there is much room for enhancing it. The
findings of this study indicate that strengthening their sense of efficacy to engage
in policy can contribute to this effort.
As social work educators, a policy role is not only important in of itself but it isalso crucial for two other reasons. By engaging in policy practice, SWAs canbetter bring this knowledge to the classroom and be better able to demonstrate
to students first-hand how they can emulate this role. Moreover, by engaging inpolicy-related activities, social work educators can serve as role-models for theirstudents and thus enthuse them to follow in their footsteps.
If social justice and policy practice are the key social work values that theliterature claims them to be, then social work academics can play a major role in
the profession's effort to further these values. Their efforts and the impact ofthese on society and their students are important and should be encouraged.

73

Sources
Adams, R. Dominelli, L. and Payne, M. (2009), Towards a critical understanding ofsocial work, In: R. Adams, L. Dominelli, and M. Payne (eds), Social Work:
Themes, Issues and Critical Debates (3rd edition), New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, pp. 1-9.
Ahmad, M. (2008), US think tanks and the politics of expertise: Role, value andimpact, The Political Quarterly, 79, 4: 529-55.
All Party Parliamentary Group on Social Work. (2013). Inquiry into the state of social
work report. Birmingham: British Association of Social Work.
Bamford, T. (2015) Education –A contested landscape, Professional Social Work,
March, Birmingham, BASW.
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: Insightsfrom Policy Minded Researchers and Research-minded Policymakers,
London: Routledge.
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.
Branco, F. (2009). A Formação de Assistentes Sociais em Portugal: Breve perspectiva
histórica e análise curricular da formação superior em Serviço Social pós
reforma de Bolonha: CESSS %9 WorkPaper 1/2009.
Branco, F. (2010). A Profissão de Assistente Social em Portugal. Locus Social, 3(2),61-89.

74

Branco, F., & Rodrigues, F. (2008). A Investigação em Serviço Social em Portugal:
uma aproximação a partir da formação pós-graduada, Salvador da Baía %! A
Investigação em Serviço Social em Portugal: uma aproximação a partir daformação pós-graduada %@ 978-85-99447-04-8.
Brym, R.J. and Nakhaie, M.R. (2009), Professional, critical, policy and publicacademics in Canada, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 34,3: 655-69.
Buckley, H., Tonmyr, L., Lewig, K. and Jack, S. (2014), Factors influencing theuptake of research evidence in child welfare: A synthesis of findings from
Australia, Canada and Ireland, Child Abuse Review, 23, 1: 5-16.
Bulmer, M. (1986), Social Science and Social Policy, London: Allen and Unwin.
Burawoy, M. (2005), 2004 American Sociological Association presidential address:
For public sociology, British Journal of Sociology, 56, 2: 259-94.
Byers, K. V. (2014), Reemergence of policy practice: A journey back to our roots,
Advances in Social Work, 15, 1: 34-50.
Carpenter, J., Shardlow, S.M., Patsios, D. and Wood, M. (2015) Developing theconfidence and competence of newly qualified social workers in England:
Outcomes of a national programme, British Journal of Social Work, 45 (1)153-176.
Chandler, S.K. (2009), Working hard, living poor: Social work and the movement forlivable wages, Journal of Community Practice, 17, 1-2: 170-83.
Cherney, A., Head, B., Boreham P., Povey J. and Ferguson, M. (2012), Perspectivesof academic social scientists on knowledge transfer and researchcollaborations: A cross-sectional survey of Australian academics, Evidence &Policy, 8, 4: 433–45.

75

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.
Crona, B. and Parker, B. (2011), Network determinants of knowledge utilization:
preliminary lessons from a boundary organization, Science Communication,
33, 4: 448–71.
CSWE-Council on Social Work Education. (2010, March), Educational Policy andAccreditation Standards. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=43974
Donnison, D. (2000), The academic contribution to social reform, Social Policy &Administration, 34, 1: 26-43.
Dominelli, L. (2004), Introducing Social Work, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Estremera-Jiménez, R. (2015). Trabajo Social comunitario puertorriqueño: De laexperiencia histórica hacia un modelo liberador. (Puerto Rican community
social work: From a historic perspective toward a liberation model).
Publicaciones Gaviota, Inc.: Río Piedras, Puerto Rico.
Gal, J. (in press), The Israeli welfare state system: With special reference to social
inclusion. In C. Aspalter (ed.), Ashgate Research Companion of
Welfare State Systems.
Gal, J. and Weiss-Gal, I. (2013) Policy practice in social work: An introduction. In
John Gal & Idit Weiss-Gal (eds.), Social Workers Affecting Social Policy:
Policy Practice in an International Perspective. Bristol: Policy Press.
Gambrill, E. (2006), Evidence-based practice and policy: Choices ahead, Research on
Social Work Practice, 16, 3: 338-57.

76

Goldberg, G. S. (2012), Economic inequality and economic crisis: A challenge forsocial workers, Social Work, 57, 3: 211- 24.
Gregory, M. and Holloway, M. (2005), The debate as a pedagogic tool in social
policy for social work students, Social Work Education, 24,6: 617-37.
Guardiola Ortíz, D., Guemárez Cruz, C. & Rivera Casiano, A. (2007). La crisis
sostenida: Retos para la política social y el trabajo social. Editorial Edil: San
Juan, PR.
Guardiola Ortíz, D. & Serra Taylor, J. (2002). Política social y trabajo social en
Puerto Rico. Desafíos y alternativas para el Siglo XXI. Publicaciones
Puertorriqueñas: Hato Rey, Puerto Rico.
Hardy, M. (2013), Public social work?, Qualitative Social Work, 12,4: 540-545.
Harington, P.R.J. and Beddoe, L. (2014), Civic practice: A new professional paradigm
for social work, Journal of Social Work, 14, 2: 147-64.
Haynes, A.S., Derrick, G.E., Chapman, S., Redman, S., Hall, W.D., Gillespie, J. andSturk, 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.
Head, B.W. (2008), Three lenses of evidence-based policy, Australian Journal of
Public Administration, 67, 1: 1–11.
Hoefer, R. (2013), Social workers affecting social policy in the United States. In J.
Gal and I. Weiss-Gal (eds), Social Workers Affecting Social Policy: An
International Perspective on Policy Practice, Bristol: Policy Press.
Howlett, M. (2007), Analyzing multi-actor, multi-round public policy decisionmaking processes in government: Findings from five Canadian cases,
Canadian Journal of Political Science, 40, 3: 659–84.

77

Huberman, M. (1990), Linkage between researchers and practitioners: A qualitative
study, American Educational Research Journal, 27, 2: 363-91.
IFSW-International Federation of Social Workers (2014) Global Definition of Social
Work. Retrieved from http://ifsw.org/get-involved/global-definition-of-socialwork.
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.
Jann, W. and Wegrich, K. (2007), Theories of the policy cycle. In F. Fischer, G.J.
Miller, and M.S. Sidney (eds), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis, Boca
Raton, Florida: CRC Press, pp. 43-62.
Jansson, B.S. (2014), Becoming an Effective Policy Advocate: From Policy Practiceto Social Justice (7th ed.), Bewlmont: Brooks/Cole.
Kaufman, R. (2004), Successful university-community partnership to change public
policy: Preconditions and processes, Journal of Community Practice, 12, 3-4:
163-180.
Knott, J. and Wildavsky A. (1980), If dissemination is the solution, what is the
problem? Science Communication, 1,4: 537-78.
Kooiman, J. (2003), Governing as Governance, London: Sage.
Kothari, A., MacLean, L. and Edwards, N. (2009), Increasing capacity for knowledgetranslation: 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 ofSociology, 28: 63-90.

78

Landry, R., Amara, N. and Lamari, M. (2001), Utilization of social science researchknowledge in Canada, Research Policy, 30, 2: 333-349.
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.
Macadam, M. (2013), Impact evaluation in the policy landscape: Understanding theinfluence of social science, Evidence and Policy, 9, 4: 573-82.
MacKinnon, S. T. (2009), Social work intellectuals in the Twenty‐First Century:
Critical social theory, critical social work and public engagement, Social Work
Education, 28, 5: 512-27.
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, andsocial policy: Potential pathways of influence, Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 37, 2: 140 –45.
Marston, G. and McDonald, C. (2012), Getting beyond 'heroic agency' inconceptualising social workers as policy actors in the Twenty-First
Century, British Journal of Social Work, 42,6: 1022-38.
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.
Mendes, P. (2013), Social workers affecting social policy in Australia. In J. Gal and
I. Weiss-Gal (eds), Social Workers Affecting Social Policy: An International
Perspective on Policy Practice, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 17-38.
Moriarty, J.; Manthorpe, J.; Stevens, M. and Hussein, S. (2011) Making the transit

79Comparing research on newly qualified social workers with other professions,
British Journal of Social Work, (41) 7, 1340-1356.
Narey, M. (2014). Making the education of social workers consistently effective.
Retrieved Fromhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/287756/Making_the_education_of_social_workers_consistently_effective.pdf.
Negrón-Velázquez, G. (April 17, 2014a). Ideologies and professional preferences of
Latin- American social work students. Paper presented at the 4th European
Conference for Social Work Research, Bozen, Bolzano.
Negrón-Velázquez, G. (July 10, 2014b). Comparative study about ideologies andprofessional preferences of Latin-America social work students: Attitudes
toward poverty. Paper presented at the Joint World Conference on Social
Work, Education, and Social Development, Melbourne, Australia.
Nevo, I. and Slonim-Nevo, V. (2011), The myth of evidence-based practice: Towards
evidence-informed practice, British Journal of Social Work, 41, 6: 1176-97.
Newman, J. (2011), Boundary troubles: working the academic–policy
Interface, Policy and Politics, 39, 4: 473-84.
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? Evidence-based Policy andPractice in Public Services, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 30-41.
Orr, G. (2008), Academics and media in Australia, Australian Universities Review,52, 1: 23-31.
Parrott, L. (2010), Values and Ethics in Social Work Practice (2nd ed), Exeter:
Learning Matters.

80Patterson, D.A., Cronley, C., West, S. and Lantz, J. (2014), Social justice manifest: A
University-community partnership to promote the individual right to Housing,
Journal of Social Work Education, 50, 2: 234-46.
Richards, D. and Smith, M.J. (2002), Governance and Public Policy in the UK,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richardson, L. (2013), Putting the research boot on the policymakers' foot: Can
participatory approaches change the relationship between policymakers andevaluation?, Social Policy and Administration, 47,4: 483-500.
Ritter, A.J. (2013), Social Work Policy Practice: Changing Our Community, Nation,and the World, Boston: Pearson.
Rosenhek, Z. and Shalev, M. (2014). The political economy of Israel’s ‘social justice’protests: A class and generational analysis, Contemporary Social Science:
Journal of the Academy of Social Sciences, 9:1, 31-48.
Sherraden, M.S., Slosar, B. and Sherraden, M (2002), Innovation in social policy:
Collaborative policy advocacy, Social Work, 47, 3: 209-21.
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.
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: entangledperspectives, Higher Education, 32: 81-97.
Vedung, E. (2010), Four waves of evaluation diffusion, Evaluation, 16, 3: 263-77.
81

Vukovic, D. and Babovic, M. (2014), Social interests, policy networks, and legislative
outcomes, East European Politics and Societies, 28, 1: 5-24.
Walt, S.M. (2005), The relationship between theory and policy in international
relations, Annual Review of Political Science, 8: 23–48.
Ward, K.J., Maher E.J., Marcynyszyn M., Lyscha A., Ellis M.L.K. and Pecora, P.J.
(2011), Context matters: Real-world and utilization-focused evaluation
strategies to support change and improvement in child welfare, Child Welfare,90, 2: 29-47.
Weiss, C.H. and Bucuvalas, M. (1980), Social Science Research and DecisionMaking, New York: Columbia University Press.
Weiss-Gal, I, Spiro, S.E., Sherer, M. and Korin-Langer, N. (2004), Social work in
Israel: Professional characteristics in an international comparative perspective,
International Journal of Social Welfare, 13, 287-296.
Weiss-Gal, I. (2013), Social workers affecting social policy in Israel. In J. Gal and I.
Weiss-Gal (eds), Social Workers Affecting Social Policy: An International
Perspective on Policy Practice, Bristol: Policy Press.
Wilson, K., Ruch, G., Lymbery, M. and Cooper, A. (2008) Social work: An
introduction to contemporary practice, Harlow: Pearson Education.
Zubrzycki, J. and McArthur, M. (2004), Preparing social work students for policy
practice: An Australian example, Social Work Education, 23, 4: 451- 64.

82