Status Differentials: Men and Women in Social Work.

David Fanshel, DSW, is Professor, Columbia University School of Social Work, New York, New York. It had been intended that the late Paul Schreiber would write this article. His interest in the status problems of women in the profession of social work exemplified a humanistic life orientation for which he was well known. He de tested discrimination in a profound way, having experienced it firsthand in Hitlerite Europe, and he was always prepared to use his substantial analytic skills in behalf of freeing human creativity. He volunteered to work on this article because of his desire to join his efforts with those of others concerned with insuring that the social work profession offered full opportunity for professional development without regard to sex. Paul Schreiber also had a strong conviction that discussions and disputes about policies and practices in the profession could be raised to higher levels with the infusion of data. He was aware that discourse on deeply felt issues often did not advance understanding because of the absence of rudimentary information about the phenomena being addressed. From this perspective, he thought it useful to present data from the files of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) on the status of women in the profession. He wished to examine differences between male and female association members with respect to the kinds of jobs held and the salaries being received. He therefore enlisted the assistance of the NASW national office staff, and some cross-tabulations were ordered from the service organization that handles the association's com puterized data files. Paul Schreiber died before having an opportunity to examine the first com puter runs for this project. The author agreed to pick up the task of writing this article out of a sense of identification with Paul's conviction that an issue of social work devoted to the status of women in the profession ought to include basic statistical information in a form that could enlighten discussion. The as signment was accepted despite some initial personal reluctance related to the short time available to examine the data, perform a variety of computer runs, and give the material the careful consideration the topic warrants. The data requested were supplied from late August through mid-September 1976. The writer did not have an opportunity to discuss the project with Paul to de termine the assumptions that underlay his approach to the article. However, on the basis of discussion with Beatrice Saunders, editor of social work, and by making some commonsense assumptions, it seems clear that one of Paul's basic motives was to inform the profession about the extent to which sexism constrains the opportunities available to women in social work. Knowing Paul's thinking, as I believe I do, it seems probable he thought that the introduction of some ob jective data into an emotionally charged area could only be salutary. The infor mation in the NASW data file could presumably shed light on two questions: (1) Are female social workers underrepresented in leadership jobs relative to males? and (2) Are females paid less than males in the profession? It may well be the reaction of many readers, particularly women, that: it is not necessary to present formal data about discrimination against women. Sex ism is obviously a pervasive phenomenon in our society, and social work is not immune to such influence despite the historical presence of women in the profession and the highly important leadership contributions they have made over the years. It is well known that more often than not, men are the administrators of social agencies. Why go through the exercise of examining data? Paul would most likely have responded: "But let us get a clear picture of the true nature of things. How big are the sex-linked differences?" Accurate information can provide a picture of the basic dimension of the problem and establish a baseline from which to chart future progress. —D. F.